Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAJEEV @ RAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 8126 2023
Rescheduling - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 302, 323, 324, 325 - The court emphasized the necessity of procuring key forensic evidence before proceeding with the trial, thereby prioritizing fair trial standards in its decision to reschedule.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faces charges under various sections of the IPC, and a trial is pending. An application to reschedule due to the unavailability of a vital forensic report was filed and rejected initially.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the forensic report is critical for the prosecution's case and, given its delay, decided to quash the previous trial dates and allow rescheduling.
Issues: Whether the trial should proceed without the critical forensic report and if the rescheduling of the trial is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The necessity of ensuring all vital evidence, including the forensic report, is available before proceeding with a trial is crucial for upholding the integrity of the legal process.
Final Decision: The trial is to be rescheduled after the forensic report is obtained.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in SC No. 644/2022 on the file of the Addl.District and Sessions Court-II, Mavelikkara. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs. 302, 323, 324 and 325 of the IPC . The court below framed charge against the petitioner and on 26.08.2023, the petitioner engaged a counsel to defend the charge against him. Now, the case stands scheduled for examination of witness from 06.10.2023 to 19.10.2023. An application for rescheduling the trial, because of the inconvenience of the counsel, is rejected.
2. It is submitted that the prosecution mainly rely upon the forensic report, but the report is not received and the trial is scheduled without noticing the same. This Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the same. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the forensic report is not received and it will take one month time to get it. If that is the case, I think the trial is to be rescheduled after one month. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the forensic report is vital in this case as far as the prosecution is concerned. In such circumstances, I think the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Sessions Judge can be directed to reschedule the trial.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following manner :
1) The order in Crl.M.P.Nos. 1098/2023 and 1099/2023 in SC No. 644/2022 of the Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara are quashed.
2) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara is directed to reschedule the trial, after getting the forensic report.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
