IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 501 of 2011() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 250 OF 2007 OF HOSDURG Police Station PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. ARAVINDAN MANIKKOTH, S/O.K.V.AMBUVAIDYAR AGED 54 YEARS, SAFEENA QUARTERS, KOVVAL PALLY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315. 2. BOOBY A.MANIKKOTH, S/O.ARAVINDAN MANIKKOTH, AGED 28 YEARS, SAFEENA QUARTERS, KOVVAL PALLY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.BINDHU PAULOSE RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 3. SRI.SIDDIQUE.M., S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 29 YEARS, MURYANAMI, POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : ADV SRI K J MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.501 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.250 of 2007 of Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sec.307 r/w Sec.34 or the Indian Penal Code and Secs.25(i)(i-B)(a) and 5 r/w Sec.27(i) of the Arms Act. Case was registered on the information given by the third respondent. His case is that on 24.05.2007 at about 11.15p.m petitioners in furtherance of their common intention and with intend to cause his death shot him on the right leg with a pistol.Motive alleged is previous enmity. Annexure-A3 is the FIR registered by the Hosdurg police. Annexure-A5 is the wound certificate of the second respondent. The police after investigation submitted Annexure-A4, final report alleging commission of offences as above stated. According to the petitioners they are falsely implicated. Petitioners seek to quash proceeding against them contending that the allegations are false and prima facie incredible. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. My attention is drawn to Annexures-A5, A9 and A10. Annexure-A9 is produced to show that first petitioner has Crl.M.C.No.501 of 2011 -: 2 :- physical disability to the extent of 62%. According to learned counsel the first petitioner is not able to lift both his arms. It is also contended by learned counsel that going by Annexure-A5, wound certificate there is nothing to indicate that the injury was caused by a gun shot. Annexure-A10 are pages from a book written by Dr. Uma Dattan relating to “Firearm and Explosion Injuries”. Annexure-A10 is relied upon to show that there is no tattoo marks or other indications revealed from Annexure-A5 to show that the injury is caused by gun shot. 3. I have gone through Annexure-A5, copy of the wound certificate of third respondent. It is seen that he was examined by the Medical Officer on 25.05.2007 at 10.25a.m (the date of alleged incident is 24.05.2007 at 11.15p.m). Third respondent had a wound on the lateral aspect of the right foot. There were no burns. The cause of injury stated is that third respondent was shot by somebody at 24.05.2007 at 11p.m. Medical Officer has given the opinion that the injury could be caused as alleged. 4. So far as opinion contained in texts of medical jurisprudence is concerned it is the settled position of law that no reliance can be placed on it unless the Medical Officer who issued the wound certificate and gave opinion is confronted with such Crl.M.C.No.501 of 2011 -: 3 :- authority and his attention is drawn to the opinion expressed by the author. In the present case the Medical Officer has given an opinion that the injury found on the third respondent could be as alleged (history given being by gun shot). In such a situation it is not possible to act upon the opinion of the author at this stage and quash proceeding on the ground that there are no indications of gun shot injury revealed by Annexure-A5. 5. Question whether on account of disability of first petitioner as stated in Annexure-A9 he could not be a party to the alleged incident is a matter which the trial court has to decide. 6. I am not persuaded to think that the allegations are so improbable that this Court is required to and justified in quashing proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am persuaded to think that the matter has to go for trial where petitioners can raise all their contentions. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take up all contention before the trial court. Trial court shall decide the case untrammeled by any observation contained in this order. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge