Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15609
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
NIYAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10002 OF 2024|CRIME NO.858/2010|SC NO.887 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHIBIN K.F., SEBY JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K
Prosecution cannot continue without substantive evidence, particularly where co-accused have been acquitted.
Headnote:The case involves the petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 858 of 2010 under various IPC sections based on prior acquittals of co-accused. The court observed that without sufficient evidence against the petitioner and in light of the judgments provided, continuation would be futile. The issue framed was the relevance of co-accused acquittals and whether continuing the prosecution against the petitioner was justified. The court concluded that in absence of evidence, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted, quashing the FIR and proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal charges related to unlawful assembly. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for quashing based on co-accused acquittal. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation regarding lack of evidence. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025 Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 858 of
2010 registered at the Anthikkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 325, 308, 120-B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code , now pending as S.C No.887 of 2011 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur.
2. The crime is registered on the allegation that, at about 1:30 pm on 29.11.2010, the accused, 8 in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, attacked CW1 Joshy, after obstructing the movement of the bus in which he was working. After committal, the case was numbered as S.C No. 632 of 2011 of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 stood trial in that case and were acquitted by Annexure- A9 judgment and case against the other accused was split up. Subsequently, accused Nos. 5 and 7 stood trial in the split up case (S.C No. 818 of 2019) and were acquitted as per Annexure-A10 Judgment . The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the strength of the judgments of acquittal rendered in the case of his co-accused.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the categoric findings in Annexures-A9 and A10 judgments, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against his client. In support of the contention, attention is drawn to paragraphs 11 and 12 of Annexure-A9 Judgment . 4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. A perusal of Annexure-A9 Judgment reveals that the injured de facto complainant (CW1) was not examined as a witness and all documents were marked through PW4, the Investigating Officer. The trial court therefore rightly held that, even though Ext.P1, the FI Statement of CW1 was marked, no evidentary value can be given to that document. After carefully analyzing the other evidence on record, trial court came to the definite conclusion that there is no legal incriminating evidence and the prosecution did not succeed in proving the offences alleged against the accused. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.MC is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No. 858 of 2010 of the Anthikkad Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C No. 887 of 2011 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, as against the petitioner, is quashed.
