The acquittal of co-accused negates the basis for prosecution against others, prompting quashing of charges.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10018 OF 2025 CRIME NO.129/2015 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.887 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RENJITH PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS S/O SASIDHAREN PILLAI, RESIDING AT THEVELIL MANNIL HOUSE, NEAR ARANMULA TEMPLE, ARANMULA VILLAGE, MALLAPUZHACHERRY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN, PIN - 689533 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

SMT.ANJU SUSAN REJI RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031

2 JITHIN GEORGE, S/O JOHN, NEDUMTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, ALEX NAGAR, CHERIKOD POST, SREEKANDAPURAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670631 OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.C.S.HRITHWK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.

887/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No. 129/2015 of the Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, wherein the petitioner was ranked as the fourth accused, for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that;

On 16.02.2015, around 21:45 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant, assaulted him with hands and legs and caused injury to his right eye and different parts of his body. Further, the accused persons smashed bottles and caused a loss of Rs. 5,000/- to the property of the defacto complainant.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner states that, even though he was enlarged on bail in the crime, he did not receive summons from the Trial Court. Consequently, the case against him was split up, and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 to 3. However, by Annexure 3 judgment, the Trial Court, on finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said accused persons had committed the above offences, had acquitted the said accused persons. By the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstand the ordeal of trial, it will not lead to a conviction. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Crime No. 129/2015 was registered against five accused persons for allegedly committing the above offences.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not withstand the trial. However, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 to 3, and by Annexure 3 judgment found that PW1 had turned hostile to the prosecution because he did not identify the assailants. He also testified that he did not witness the incident. Likewise, the prosecution could not procure the presence of CWs 2 and 4. Only the doctor and the CPO were examined as PWs 2 and 3. On a consideration of the evidence of the Pws 1 to 3, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had committed the above offences. Consequently, the accused 1 to 3 were acquitted by Annexure 3 judgment.

7. In Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), a full Bench of this Court has held that in a