Rajesh Johnson vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 27, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1316009

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/1316009
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Mar 27, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/295/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Johnson

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....that some other larger offence is also involved in the case, there is no legal embargo in framing charge for the said offence, besides the offence included in the final report.2. in the instant case, final report was submitted alleging offence under section 304 ipc. after committal, both parties were heard on the question of framing of charge and charges were framed inclusive of a larger offence punishable undersection 302 ipc. it is submitted that for the incorporation of section 302 ipc, the larger offence, no separate opportunity of hearing was provided. as discussed earlier, the initial hearing before framing crl.r.p.no.295 of 2024 3 the charge is to find out grounds to proceed further in the matter and the nature of offence, for which, the accused can be tried and it is really intended to remove any kind of prejudice to the accused. the principle behind it is to avoid any kind of prejudice and it is the initial burden upon the court to enlighten the accused with respect to the offence for which he is going to be tried. necessarily, when it is specified by describing the incident with the relevant penal provision, it would be sufficient. the initial right of hearing is really intended to checkout and to ascertain grounds to proceed further. hence, there is no merits in the revision. the criminal revision petition fails and is dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/- crl.r.p.no.295 of 2024 4 appendix of crl.rev.pet 295/2024 petitioner's annexures annexure a1 the copy of fir along with fis in crime no.434/2021 of sasthamcotta police station dated 11.4.2021 annexure a2 the copy of final report dated 2.9.2021 filed by the 2nd respondent before the jfmc (temporary) sasthamcotta annexure a3 the copy of case status of sc no.254/2022 downloaded from the e-court services // true copy // p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 295 OF 2024 CRIME NO.434/2021 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM SC NO.254 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RAJESH JOHNSON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/o JOHNSON, ROSH BHAVAN HOUSE, NANTHIRIKKAL, CHERUMOODU MURI, PERINAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601 BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH RESPONDENT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521 BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C N PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.295 of 2024 2

ORDER

It is the duty of the court to find out the

relevant provisions while framing charge based on the final report submitted and the materials collected and annexed with the final report. When it is found that some other larger offence is also involved in the case, there is no legal embargo in framing charge for the said offence, besides the offence included in the final report.

2. In the instant case, final report was submitted alleging offence under Section 304 IPC. After committal, both parties were heard on the question of framing of charge and charges were framed inclusive of a larger offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that for the incorporation of Section 302 IPC, the larger offence, no separate opportunity of hearing was provided. As discussed earlier, the initial hearing before framing Crl.R.P.No.295 of 2024 3 the charge is to find out grounds to proceed further in the matter and the nature of offence, for which, the accused can be tried and it is really intended to remove any kind of prejudice to the accused. The principle behind it is to avoid any kind of prejudice and it is the initial burden upon the court to enlighten the accused with respect to the offence for which he is going to be tried. Necessarily, when it is specified by describing the incident with the relevant penal provision, it would be sufficient. The initial right of hearing is really intended to check

out and to ascertain grounds to proceed further. Hence, there is no merits in the revision. The Criminal Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/- Crl.R.P.No.295 of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 295/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE COPY OF FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.434/2021 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION DATED 11.4.2021 Annexure A2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 2.9.2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC (TEMPORARY) SASTHAMCOTTA Annexure A3 THE COPY OF CASE STATUS OF SC NO.254/2022 DOWNLOADED FROM THE E-COURT SERVICES // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Rajesh Johnson vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan

Public prosecutor With respect to district court Police Station high court True copy