Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55283
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
LIJITH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A/1215/2016
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.GP ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN &CHILDREN & WELFARE OF W & C
The court ruled that charges of sexual offenses must be presented without ambiguity, emphasizing procedural clarity to prevent prejudice to defendants.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 218, 219, 220, 366, 376 - Summary of the court's interpretation of procedural requirements in the context of multiple defendants and distinct charges, influencing trial outcomes.
Fact of the Case:
A minor was subjected to continuous sexual abuse by several accused over two years. The court faced challenges regarding the proper conduct of trials under the Criminal Procedure Code, especially the appropriateness of splitting charges and the definition of 'same transaction.'
Finding of the Court:
The court found that separate trials were not conducted correctly under procedural law, particularly incorrectly applying sections 218, 219, and 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which resulted in mismanagement of charges against multiple accused.
Issues: Whether the splitting of charges between different accused individuals prejudiced the defendants and if the procedural requirements in establishing charges of sexual offenses were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that charges must be clear and specific in sexual offense cases, especially regarding consent and the age of the victim, asserting that procedural safeguards are essential to ensure a fair trial.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part; some convictions upheld while others were quashed due to procedural misapprehensions.
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Abject failure of the prosecution is the bane of criminal judicial administration and the instant case is a classic example. A minor child was subjected to repeated sexual abuse over a period of time by a group of persons who were close acquaintances. The defence is also of consent, for reason of the child being above sixteen, a permissible legal ground, as the Indian Penal Code stood at that point of time. The Court split up the trial of the offences, looking at Section 219 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), with over emphasis on the period of one year, within which three offences of the same kind could be clubbed together; without paying attention to the fact that Sections 218 to 220 speaks of the offences committed by one single person and not different accused, as also ignoring the definition of offences of the same kind as available in sub-section (2)
of Section 219 .
2. The accused, numbering seven, arrayed in a single final report was charged separately of some offences and others, charged together. The offences were committed by different accused, in the course of almost two years. The Final Report of the police itself split up the offences as committed prior to and later to 28.11.2006; the date divined by the police and not the victim. Prejudice was raised as a preliminary ground in one of the appeals, by A1 in the Final Report (F.R), on the ground that there should have been a joint trial of all the offences alleged in the F.R, of the single crime registered. However, no such application was filed under the proviso to Section 218 (1) Cr.P.C before the trial Court, at least with respect to the offences charged against him. The request was made in a Crl.M.C filed before this Court. It is admitted that the same was withdrawn by the petitioner and then a separate Crl.M.C was filed by the very same person joining with other five accused, which is still pending before this Court and placed before us along with these appeals; which obviously has become infructuous.
3. S.218 mandates, for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, a separate charge, tried separately; with the proviso that an accused, all the same, could make an application for joint trial which could also be permitted, if the Court opines that there would be no prejudice caused to the accused. Sub-section (2) saves the operation of Ss.219 to 223 from the rigour of S. 218(1). S.219 permits three offences of the same kind to be clubbed together, if the allegation is of those offences having been committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences and S.220 any number of such offences, if the acts alleged constitute the same transaction; but again that committed by a single person.
4. Crime No.216/2008 of Puthenvelikara Police station led to the F.R filed by the C.I of Police, Vadakkekara, alleging commission of offences under Sections 366A and 376(2)(g) read with 34 IPC against seven accused. The incidents forming the basis of the allegations; as decipherable from the original charge sheet prepared by the trial Court, were ten in number. First, that, 'for about 11 months prior to 28.11.2006' the 1st accused Rajeev (A1) repeatedly raped the prosecutrix/victim, a girl of 16 years in the house rented out by him, when the victim went to that house to watch T.V. Secondly, it was alleged that during the same period 'a day after Onam', A2 (Sinoj) and A3 (Aji) friends and acquaintance of A1 raped the victim from the very same house. The third charge was that after 'five months of the aforesaid period, of 11 months before 28.11.2006', A4 (Lijith), friend of A1 raped the victim in the house of A1. Fourth charge was that, 'on a day after 28.11.2006', A1 kidnapped the victim in a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-07J-3191, from the lawful guardianship of her father and took her to the house of one Chittedath Bhargavi Amma and raped her. Fifthly it was alleged that, A1 took the victim t
