Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46030
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
ARUN RAJ
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 144 2022
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, N.P.ASHA, D.FEROZE
Discharge from charges requires clear evidence of participation in actions constituting the defined legal offense, which was absent in this case.
Headnote:
Ragging - Criminal Revision - IPC Section 501, Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act Section 4 - The court discussed the lack of evidence connecting the petitioners to the alleged ragging incident and interpreted the definition of ragging, ultimately discharging the petitioners under the relevant statutes.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, who were law students, allegedly defamed a senior student by distributing a notice containing defamatory allegations. They filed a petition seeking discharge based on the groundless nature of the charges against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice did not name the accused or the victim and that mere circulation did not prove authorship or constitute ragging as defined by the act.
Issues: Whether the actions of the revision petitioners amounted to ragging under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act despite the lack of evidence linking them to the authorship of the defamatory notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without clear evidence connecting the accused to the notice, the charges under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act could not stand.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, and the petitioners are discharged from the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam (for short 'the court below') dated 14.9.2021 in C.M.P.No.878/2021 in C.C.No.651/2015.
2. The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.1804/2014 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 501 r/w 34 of the IPC and 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act .
3. The revision petitioners are practicing lawyers. The incident had taken place when they were law students at Government Law College, Ernakulam.
4. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention to defame the victim distributed the notice containing defamatory allegations among the students and defamed her and thereby committed the offences.
5. The revision petitioners filed C.M.P.No.878/2021 invoking Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that charge against them are groundless. The court below after hearing both sides, discharged the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 501 of the IPC alone as per the impugned order. The revision petitioners challenge the impugned order in this revision petition to the extent of not discharging them of the offence punishable under Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act .
6. I have heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The revision petitioners were the students of three years 3rd semester at the time of the incident. The victim was a senior student at the same college who was studying in three years 4th semester. Her allegation is that the revision petitioners circulated Annexure-I notice among the students containing defamatory remarks against her.
8. A perusal of Annexure-I notice would show that it does not contain either the name of the revision petitioners or the name of the victim. It does not have any reference to the victim at all. No witness spoke that the revision petitioners are the authors of Annexure-I though some of the witnesses stated that the revision petitioners distributed the notice among the students of the college. Even if the said statement of the witnesses is believed, that will only prove that the revision petitioners circulated the notice. In short, there is nothing on record to show that the revision petitioners are the authors of Annexure-I notice. That apart, it is doubtful whether mere circulation of notice containing defamatory remarks that too against a senior student would attract the term “ragging” defined under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act . Section 2(b) of the defines “ragging” as follows:-
“2(b)"Ragging" means doing of any act, by disorderly conduct, to a student of an educational institution, which causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or raising apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to that student and includes-
(i) teasing, abusing or playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to, such student; or (ii) asking a student to do any act or perform something which such student will not, in the ordinary course, willingly, do.”
9. There is no case for the prosecution that the revision petitioners teased, abused or played practical jokes on the victim or caused hurt to her. There is also no case for the prosecution that the revision petitioners asked the victim to do any act or perform something. Even if the entire prosecution case that the notice contained defamatory statement against the victim and that it is the revision petitioners have circulated it, is believed, at best offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC alone will be attracted. The court below did not consider whether the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act are attracted or not.
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that Section 4 o
