Jinesh Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1136909
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
AppellantJinesh Krishnan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice n.k.balakrishnan tuesday, the1t day of april201411th chaithra, 1936 crl.mc.no. 1532 of 2014 () --------------------------- sc. no.355/2013 of additional sessions court (trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence against women and children). ....... petitioner/accused: ----------------------------------- jinesh krishnan, s/o.gopala krishnan, aged31years, alungapokkam (h), vaniyakkadu, kottuvallyvillage, ernakulam district. by advs.sri.anil k.mohammed, sri.m.k.faisal. respondent/complainant: --------------------------------------------- state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. by public prosecutor mr.rajesh vijayan. this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on0104-2014, the court o n the same day passed the following: rs. crl.mc.no. 1532 of 2014 appendix petitioner's annexures:- annexure a: true photocopy of the complainant in m.p no.421/2012 of jfcm, n.paravur. annexure b: true photocopy of the fir in crime no.338/2012 of north paravoor police station. annexure c: true photocopy of the charge sheet in c.p no.3/2013 on the files of judicial first class magistrate court, north paravoor. annexure d: true photocopy of court charge in sc no.355/2013 of court of addl. sessions judge (trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence against women and children), ernakulam. anexure e: certified copy of order dated1612/2013 of the court of addl. sessions judge (trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence against women and children), ernakulam. respondent's annexures:- nil. //true copy// p.a. to judge rs. n.k. balakrishnan, j.------------------------------------------ crl.m.c. no. 1532 of 2014 (g) ------------------------------------------ dated this the 1st day of april, 2014 order the petitioner is the sole accused in s.c. no.355/2013 now pending before the additional sessions judge, ernakulam. the learned sessions judge passed an order dated 16.12.2013 where it is alleged that the accused, promising to marry the prosecutrix, had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly by threatening her that he had taken nude photographs etc. seven specific instances were pointed out by the prosecution.2. the learned sessions judge found that since seven instances, during the period from 26.08.2007 to 7.5.2011, were pointed out, a single charge for all the said offences cannot be sustained. presumably invoking section 219 of cr.p.c., the alleged incidents which took place between 20.12.2008 and 5.10.2009 (offences within a period of 12 crl.m.c. no. 1532/2014 (g) -2- months) were allowed to be jointly tried as a separate case. three alleged incidents which took place on 24.8.2010, 24.12.2010 and 7.5.2011 (committed during a period of 12 months) were allowed to be tried as another case. similarly, the alleged incidents which took place on 20.12.2008 and 5.10.2009 were allowed to be tried as 3rd case. similarly, another case pertaining to three incidents dated 24.8.2010, 24.12.2010 and 7.5.2011 were allowed to be tried in another case.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this will cause serious prejudice to the accused. it is submitted that if the very same complainant has to be examined in all these cases and if the court enters a finding in one case, that will certainly prejudice his defense in the other cases. according to the petitioner all these cases cannot be split up in the manner done by the learned sessions judge. crl.m.c. no. 1532/2014 (g) -3- 4. in view of what is contained in section 219 of cr.p.c., the order passed by the learned sessions judge is found to be correct. but as far as possible, the trial in all those cases can be almost simultaneously conducted and thus the plea of prejudice can be got over. it is left to the trial judge to decide whether all those cases can be tried and disposed of simultaneously. the challenge against splitting of charge is found to be unsustainable. hence, this criminal m.c. is dismissed but with the observations as made above. sd/- n.k. balakrishnan, judge //true copy// p.a. to judge jjj
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1532 of 2014 () --------------------------- SC. NO.355/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN). ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- JINESH KRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALA KRISHNAN, AGED31YEARS, ALUNGAPOKKAM (H), VANIYAKKADU, KOTTUVALLYVILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED, SRI.M.K.FAISAL. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT O N THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. Crl.MC.No. 1532 of 2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINANT IN M.P NO.421/2012 OF JFCM, N.PARAVUR. ANNEXURE B: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.338/2012 OF NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.P NO.3/2013 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR. ANNEXURE D: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COURT CHARGE IN SC NO.355/2013 OF COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN), ERNAKULAM. ANEXURE E: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER

DATED1612/2013 OF THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN), ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 1532 of 2014 (G) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2014 ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.355/2013 now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order dated 16.12.2013 where it is alleged that the accused, promising to marry the prosecutrix, had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly by threatening her that he had taken nude photographs etc. Seven specific instances were pointed out by the prosecution.

2. The learned Sessions Judge found that since seven instances, during the period from 26.08.2007 to 7.5.2011, were pointed out, a single charge for all the said offences cannot be sustained. Presumably invoking section 219 of Cr.P.C., the alleged incidents which took place between 20.12.2008 and 5.10.2009 (offences within a period of 12 Crl.M.C. No. 1532/2014 (G) -2- months) were allowed to be jointly tried as a separate case. Three alleged incidents which took place on 24.8.2010, 24.12.2010 and 7.5.2011 (committed during a period of 12 months) were allowed to be tried as another case. Similarly, the alleged incidents which took place on 20.12.2008 and 5.10.2009 were allowed to be tried as 3rd case. Similarly, another case pertaining to three incidents dated 24.8.2010, 24.12.2010 and 7.5.2011 were allowed to be tried in another case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this will cause serious prejudice to the accused. It is submitted that if the very same complainant has to be examined in all these cases and if the Court enters a finding in one case, that will certainly prejudice his defense in the other cases. According to the petitioner all these cases cannot be split up in the manner done by the learned Sessions Judge. Crl.M.C. No. 1532/2014 (G) -3- 4. In view of what is contained in Section 219 of Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is found to be correct. But as far as possible, the trial in all those cases can be almost simultaneously conducted and thus the plea of prejudice can be got over. It is left to the trial Judge to decide whether all those cases can be tried and disposed of simultaneously. The challenge against splitting of charge is found to be unsustainable. Hence, this Criminal M.C. is dismissed but with the observations as made above. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj