IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4165 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2008 IN CRL MP 38/2008 IN SC.97/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-I) TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- PALRAJ @ APPUKUTTAN, S/O. THANKAYYAN, KUNCHUVEETUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENKADAMBU DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.4165 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track No.I, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.97/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. In Criminal Appeal No.1504/04, this Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A, but set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC. It was held that, prima facie, the petitioner is liable to be found guilty under Section 304B IPC. But, this Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for giving a chance to the appellant to adduce defence evidence, so that he may dispel the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. When the trial began before the trial court, based on the above remand order, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.38/08 praying that fresh charge may be framed against him under Section 304B IPC and de novo trial may be held. The trial court considered the said petition and dismissed it by order dated 16.9.2008, a copy of which is produced as Annexure- B along CRL.M.C.No.4165/08 -2- with this Crl.M.C. Challenging that order, this Crl.M.C. is filed. 2. Going by Annexure A order of this Court remanding the matter for trial, the petitioner is not entitled to claim framing of fresh charge against him and de novo trial. What is contemplated under the remand order is only to give a chance to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence. Therefore, we find that the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the court below by Annexure B order. We find that no ground has been made out in this Crl.M.C. to interfere with the same under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn