Jishnu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 03, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1309737

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/1309737
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen
Decided On: Apr 03, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/205/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jishnu

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....commission of offences punishable under sections 450,376(1), 376(2)(n), 376 ab, 354, 354a(1)(i), 328 and 506(1) of ipc, sections 4(2) read with 3(a), 3(b), 6 read with 5(l), 5(m), 12 read with 11(v) of protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012 and sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989. in this crime, investigation has been completed and final report also filed justifying the above said offences, prima facie. at this juncture, the petitioner filed an application under section 227 of cr.p.c, seeking his discharge. the said petition was dismissed by the learned special judge.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the statement given by the victim is not reliable and the ocular evidence also do not tally with the medical evidence. therefore, this is a fit case for quashment. he also pointed out some contradictions in between the 161 statement and 164 statement as the reason for quashment.7. the learned public prosecutor opposed quashment, highlighting that there are materials in abundance, prima facie, to proceed trial in this matter.8. the special court, while considering the discharge petition, evaluated the materials available and found that there was strong prima facie case against the accused for framing charge in respect of the above offences and dismissed the plea of discharge.9. i have perused the entire materials in tune with thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. on reading the entire materials, commission of the above said offences made out, prima facie, warranting trial of the accused, after framing charge, as per law. since the contentions raised by the petitioner in the discharge petition cannot be considered at the time of quashment, i am of the view that this criminal revision petition is meritless. accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed, keeping the liberty of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 205 OF 2024 CRIME NO.64/2023 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 IN SC NO.708 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, IDUKKI
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: JISHNU AGED 32 YEARS S/O. UTHAMAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, THALLAKKANAM KARA, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685606 BY ADV LAVARAJ M.G. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 XXX XXX PP - M P PRASHANTH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024

This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.2374/2023 of Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur now pending as S.C.No.708/2023 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Idukki. The petitioner is the sole accused and the respondents are the original complainant as well as State of Kerala.

2. I would like to refer the parties in this revision petition as 'accused' and 'complainant', for convenience.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Though, notice issued to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent did not appear.

4. In this matter, the crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 450,

376(1), 376(2)(n), 376 AB, 354, 354A(1)(i), 328 and 506(1) of IPC, Sections 4(2) read with 3(a), 3(b), 6 read with 5(l), 5(m), 12 read with 11(V) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this crime, investigation has been completed and Final Report also filed justifying the above said offences, prima facie. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, seeking his discharge. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the statement given by the victim is not reliable and the ocular evidence also do not tally with the medical evidence. Therefore, this is a fit case for quashment. He also pointed out some contradictions in between the 161 statement and 164 statement as the reason for quashment.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed quashment, highlighting that there are materials in abundance, prima facie, to proceed trial in this matter.

8. The Special Court, while considering the discharge petition, evaluated the materials available and found that there was strong prima facie case against the accused for framing charge in respect of the above offences and dismissed the plea of discharge.

9. I have perused the entire materials in tune with the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. On reading the entire materials, commission of the above said offences made out, prima facie, warranting trial of the accused, after framing charge, as per law. Since the contentions raised by the petitioner in the discharge petition cannot be considered at the time of quashment, I am of the view that this criminal revision petition is meritless. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed, keeping the liberty of the petitioner to raise his contentions during trial. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN

SK JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRL.RP NO.205/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES : Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.64/2023 OF IDUKKI VANITHA POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER IN THE ABOVE CRIME Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM DATED 20.07.2023 Annexure A4 THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM DATED 21.07.2023 TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CASE Annexure A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY 164 STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM RECORDED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, IDUKKI Annexure A6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT OF THE DOCTOR DATED 17.10.2023 RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Jishnu vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen