Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33705
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
MONSON M.C. @ MONSON MAVUNGAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4032/2024
M.G.SREEJITH
The court affirmed that double jeopardy does not apply when distinct offences are charged based on different time frames, allowing separate trials.
Headnote:
Double Jeopardy - Criminal Procedure - Sections 300, 219, 223 of Cr.P.C - The court interpreted the provisions regarding double jeopardy, concluding that the accused could be tried for separate offences committed at different times, thus dismissing the quashment application.
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought to quash proceedings against him for offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, claiming double jeopardy as he had previously been tried for similar charges arising from the same facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences in the current case were distinct from those previously adjudicated, as they occurred during different time frames, thus not violating the principle of double jeopardy.
Issues: Whether the prosecution of the accused for offences committed during different periods constitutes double jeopardy under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that separate trials for distinct offences occurring at different times do not violate the principle of double jeopardy, as established in Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Crl.M.C is dismissed.
ORDER
The sole accused in S.C.No.417/2022 on the files of Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short) has filed this Crl.M.C under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the following prayers:
“Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that, pleased to quash the order dated 11.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.306/2023 in S.C.No.404/2022 in the files of Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and pass an order to drop all the proceedings against the petitioner in SC No.404/2022 arised from Crime No.291/2021 of Crime Branch in the files of Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and to set-aside the Annexure-19 order dated 03.05.2024 up to the extent of dismissal order in Crl.M.P.No.764/2024 in SC No.404/2022 in the files of Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length on various dates. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 342 , 506(i), 354(A)(1)(iv) r/w 354A(3), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ’ for short), by the petitioner.
3. The grounds upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings could be seen from ground Nos.A to P, as extracted hereunder:
A. Annexure- 3 order is not maintainable either on facts or on law. The sole issue raised in this Crl MC is regarding the scope and application of doctrine of double jeopardy. The rule against double jeopardy provides foundation for the pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C; Section 26 of the General Clauses Act; and Section 71 I.P.C. This aspect is decided in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & Anr.
B. All offences in Annexure-1 Court Charge was tried by the very same trail court under Annexur-2 Court charge and convicted for all offence under Annexure-1. Hence a competent court tried the offences u/s 300 Cr.P.
C. The prosecution relying the Scene Mahazar of Crime in Annexure-2 court charge. There is no separate scene Mahazar for Annexure- 1 court Charge or Final report in Annexure-10.
D. The medio -legal report in Annexure-10 pursuant to Annexure- 1 court charge already produced and marked as P16 in the formal trail and examined the very same doctor who prepared P16 was examined as PW19.
E. There is no new material object other than MO1 which is i-Pad. During the course of trail the Public Prosecutor remarked and the trail court recorded that, nothing could be retrieved from i-Pad. Even though no evidence from the i-Pad the trail court convicted for the offence under section 354 on the ground that, if the investigation officer send other i-Pads there will be a possibility of getting the obscene pictures and the investigation officer send it for examination in a wrong place. Hence for the wrong done of Investigation officer victim should not aggrieved. In a criminal case ordinarily the mistake of the wrong of the prosecution should be an advantage to the accused.
This is also evident for the prejudice mind of the trail judge.
F. The sole evidence for conviction is Exhibit-P1, which is plastic Cover of Pregnancy test Kit named Pretest, which is alleged to be used in the year of 2019 to check the pregnancy of the victim found in the year of 2021.
G. There is no scientific evidence for conviction for the Annexure-2 Charge, there is no new materials for scientific evidence in the Annexure-1 Court Charge. H. The Majority of the charge witness sighted in Anexure-10 final report are same that of charge witness in Annexure- 11, the earlier case concluded trail. A list of unnecessary witness are in the Annexure-10 including the CW38 Forest Range officer on the ground that, he registered forest cases against the petitioner. What is the relevance of this CW38 in rape case.
I. In
