Biju Vs. the State of Kerala

Biju vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 29, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1099894

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1099894
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Harun-Ul-Rashid
Decided On: Nov 29, 2013
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Biju

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....exhibits : nil ---------------------------------------- // true copy // p.a to judge sb harun-ul-rashid, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - crl. m.c no. 5454 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 29th day of november, 2013. order petitioner is the first accused in crl.m.p no.4749/2013 in s.c no. 795/2009 under sec. 311 of cr.p.c. for recalling pws 1 to 4 and pw8and 9 on the ground that he failed to ask certain question to the witnesses regarding the injuries sustained to accused no.1 in this case. the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under sections 326, 324, 308 r/w 34 of ipc. accused no.1 is the son of accused no.2. according to the petitioner, after the death of his father, who is accused no.2, he received certain documents on his death and he want to put certain questions by recalling the witnesses. the learned judge considered the application. the learned judge noticed that the petitioner himself as stated in the petition that pws 1 to 4 were already cross-examined in respect of the injury sustained to accused no.1.2. the learned judge observed that recalling of pws 1 to 4, pw8and 9 is not considered essential for the crl. m.c no. 5454 of 2013 2 just decision of the case or for bring out the evidence in respect of the document now produced by the defence counsel and that the present petition is filed only to prolong the trial of the case. the learned judge also observes that the defence will get opportunity to bring out evidence relating to the documents produced by accused no.1 at the stage of defence evidence by examining the doctor who issued the discharge card. for these reasons, the learned judge found that the petition lacks bonafide and liable to be dismissed. i have examined the materials on records and reasoning of the court below. no sustainable grounds are made out by the petitioner for granting the relief sought for in the crl.m.c. accordingly, the crl.m.c is dismissed. harun-ul-rashid, judge. lsn

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY,THE29H DAY OF NOVEMBER20138TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 5454 of 2013 () --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN CRMP47492013 IN SC NO. 795/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA DATED1110-13 PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------------------- BIJU, AGED30YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN, CHOOZHATTILTHARA HOUSE, WARD NO.3, VAYALAR PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2911-13, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5454 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OF CRL.MP NO.4749/2013 IN SC NO.795/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE- III, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE II: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER

DATED1110.2013 CRL.MP NO.4749/2013 IN SC NO.795/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-III, ALAPPUZHA, DTD.11.10.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE SB HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. M.C No. 5454 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2013. ORDER

Petitioner is the first accused in Crl.M.P No.4749/2013 in S.C No. 795/2009 under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling Pws 1 to 4 and PW8and 9 on the ground that he failed to ask certain question to the witnesses regarding the injuries sustained to accused No.1 in this case. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Sections 326, 324, 308 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2. According to the petitioner, after the death of his father, who is accused No.2, he received certain documents on his death and he want to put certain questions by recalling the witnesses. The learned Judge considered the application. The learned judge noticed that the petitioner himself as stated in the petition that PWs 1 to 4 were already cross-examined in respect of the injury sustained to accused No.1.

2. The learned Judge observed that recalling of Pws 1 to 4, PW8and 9 is not considered essential for the Crl. M.C No. 5454 of 2013 2 just decision of the case or for bring out the evidence in respect of the document now produced by the defence counsel and that the present petition is filed only to prolong the trial of the case. The learned Judge also observes that the defence will get opportunity to bring out evidence relating to the documents produced by accused No.1 at the stage of defence evidence by examining the doctor who issued the discharge card. For these reasons, the learned Judge found that the petition lacks bonafide and liable to be dismissed. I have examined the materials on records and reasoning of the court below. No sustainable grounds are made out by the petitioner for granting the relief sought for in the Crl.M.C. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. lsn

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Biju vs The State of Kerala Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Harun-Ul-Rashid