Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Marshal vs State of Kerala

Marshal vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 27, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1351293

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/2767/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Marshal

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....would serve no purpose.6. i have gone through the charge sheet (annexure-1) and thejudgment of acquittal (annexure-2) rendered by the lower court. before thelearned magistrate, the entire prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and there was no evidence to link the accused with the crime. as held by this court in moosa v. sub inspector of police (2006 (1) klt 552), although the reasoning of the judgment or the appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to grant any relief under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, an exception to this rule exists when the substratum of the case is lost.7. i am firmly of the view that there is no point in directing thepetitioner to face trial at this stage. it would be a futile exercise that would only serve to waste precious judicial time, which could be better spent on more productive matters. the prospects of conviction are extremely slim, as crl.m.c no.2767 of 2023 4 the prosecution was unable to produce any plausible evidence during the previous trial. this court would be justified in quashing the proceedings under section 482 of the code. resultantly, this petition is allowed. annexure-1 final report in crime no.465 of 2016 of the kadinamkulam police station and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as c.c.no.116/2023 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court-i, attingal are quashed. sd/- raja vijayaraghavan v, judge iap crl.m.c no.2767 of 2023 5 appendix of crl.mc 2767/2023 petitioner’s annexures: annexure 1 true copy of the final report in crime no. annexure 2 true copy of the judgment dated 25/01/2023 in c.c no.1726/2016 of the judicial first class magistrate court, attingal

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2767 OF 2023 CC 116/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: MARSHAL AGED 32 YEARS S/O BAISIL, ROSHNI COTTAGE, BACK SIDE OF SANTHIPURAM CHURCH, SANTHIPURAM DESAM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695303 BY ADV P.M.HABEEB

RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C No.2767 of 2023 2

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.116 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.465 of 2016 of the Kadinamkulam Police Station.

2. In the final report which was laid before the learned Magistrate, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 1, as many as 5 persons were

arrayed as accused. The petitioner failed to appear before the learned Magistrate and hence the case against accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 proceeded with. By judgment dated 25.1.2023 in C.C No.1726 of 2016, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the accused, who faced trial under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C for want of evidence.

3. This petition is filed on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused, seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case against the petitioner has been shattered.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C No.2767 of 2023 3

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the

decisions of this Court in Moosa V Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336], Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

6. I have gone through the charge sheet (Annexure-1) and the

judgment of acquittal (Annexure-2) rendered by the lower court. Before the

learned Magistrate, the entire prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and there was no evidence to link the accused with the crime. As held by this court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), although the reasoning of the judgment or the appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to grant any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an exception to this rule exists when the substratum of the case is lost.

7. I am firmly of the view that there is no point in directing the

petitioner to face trial at this stage. It would be a futile exercise that would only serve to waste precious judicial time, which could be better spent on more productive matters. The prospects of conviction are extremely slim, as Crl.M.C No.2767 of 2023 4 the prosecution was unable to produce any plausible evidence during the previous trial. This Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report in Crime No.465 of 2016 of the Kadinamkulam Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.116/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal are quashed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE IAP Crl.M.C No.2767 of 2023 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2767/2023 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/01/2023 IN C.C NO.1726/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ATTINGAL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial