Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7524
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
MUHAMMED MUSAFEER R.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 817/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BIJU.P.N.
For the Respondents: SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court's directive to expedite proceedings emphasizes the importance of witness availability in trial processes.
Headnote:The petitioner, the accused in C.C. No.621/2020, seeks speedy disposal, highlighting the non-availability of the complainant as a significant hindrance. The Magistrate's report confirms the issue with the primary witness. The court directs the presence of the complainant and the Magistrate to expedite proceedings within specified timelines. The judgment orders timely examination of witnesses and resolution of the case within the next five months. The court acknowledges and resolves the delays acknowledged by the lower court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the accused seeks expedited trial due to key witness unavailability. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. investigating officer directed to ensure witness attendance. (Para 3) |
| 3. court mandates timelines for witness examination and case disposal. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No.621/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. The petitioner seeks speedy disposal of the said Calendar Case. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the sole impediment to dispose of the matter is the non-availability of the defacto complainant/CW1, who is evading the process being issued by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that three witnesses have already been examined as PW1 to PW3, and Exts.P1 to P4 marked.
2. This Court called for a report from the learned Magistrate. The report dated 10.12.2024 would indicate that CW1, CW4, CW7 and CW9 to CW13 are yet to be examined. The offence alleged is under Section 354 of the Penal Code . The allegation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the major impediment is the non-availability of CW1 is also recognized by the learned Magistrate. The report refers to coercive steps being taken against the said witness.
3. Pursuant to the direction made by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor made enquiries through the Investigating Officer. CW1, who was initially residing at Dreams Hotel, Kozhikode had shifted her residence to Tripunithura. Enquires made at Tripunithura reveals that she had gone back to an orphanage, at Thrissur. Enquiries were conducted in the orphanage also, whereupon it was revealed that CW1 got married to one Johny and they are residing at Eroor, Ernakulam. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigating team has secured the phone numbers of both CW1 and her husband, and CW1 has agreed to be present before the trial court on the next posting date.
4. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the Investigating Officer to ensure the presence of CW1 on the next posting date before the trial court. There will be a further direction to the learned Magistrate to post and consider C.C. No.621/2020 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the matter may be posted on a day convenient to the Court for evidence of CW1. Other witnesses may be examined on that day or any other day, which the learned Magistrate finds conducive. The date will be intimated to the Investigating Officer in advance, appropriately. The Investigating Officer, in tune with the directions contained in this judgment, will ensure the presence of CW1 on such date fixed by the learned Magistrate. Once CW1 is examined, there will be a direction to dispose of C.C. No.621/2020 within a period of five months thereafter.
The O.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.
