IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2637 of 2010() ------------------------------ SC.148/2009 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/IST ACCUSED: -------------------------------- PRAKASH THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, PULICKAL HOUSE, MANIPPUZHA KARA, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.AFSANA ASHRAF RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT: VARGHESE JITHESH, PULICKACHIRA HOUSE, MUKKOTTUTHARA P.O., MUKKOTTUTHARA, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.08.2011 IN CRL.M.A.NO.6631/2011. ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR ADDL.R2 PUBIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON 18/08/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.2637 OF 2010 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in S.C.No.148 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc – I), Kottayam. He has come up with the revision assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has declined to accept the refer report filed in the aforesaid case. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the revision can be summed up thus: Two crime cases were registered as crime Nos.121/2007 and 122/2007 of Erumely Police station in respect of an incident, alleged to have taken place at about 7.30 p.m. on 03.06.2007 at or beside a house by name 'Pulickachira', bearing No.E.P.XV/530, falling within the jurisdiction of the above police station. After investigation of both the crimes, final report in the respective case was filed before the court, in one of them (Crime No.121/07) including an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 2 Court, with the other case (Crime No.122/07) as a counter case to the former. The accused in both the cases were thereupon committed for trial before the Sessions Court, and the case relating to crime No.121/07 was numbered as S.C.No.67/09 and the other case crime No.122/07 as S.C.No.148/09 on the file of the above mentioned court, Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc- I), Kottayam. 3. The case in S.C.67/09 emerging from crime No.121/07 was that the accused therein, five in number, who included the de facto complainant in crime No.122/07 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly before the house bearing No.XV/530 committed the various offences imputed against them, which included the offence under Section 308 of the IPC as well. The 1st accused (A1) in the other case (S.C.No.148/09) was stated to be the victim, who is alleged to have been assaulted by the aforesaid accused, with one among the accused attempting to strike him with an iron rod. In the other case, S.C.No.148/09 emerging from crime No.122/07, wherein the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 3 is the 1st accused, the allegation was that the aforesaid accused with seven others, forming an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed upon the house named 'Pulickachira' bearing No.E.P.XV/530 and voluntarily caused hurt to three persons CW1 to CW3 in that case and, thereby, they committed the offences imputed therein. 4. After committal of the case and pending trial before the Sessions Court, the Circle Inspector of police, Manimala moved an application for further investigation of the crimes under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Trial in the cases was stopped awaiting the report after further investigation. After further investigation, the Circle Inspector of police laid a fresh charge in crime No.121/07, which, on the previous report and committal was numbered as S.C.No.67/09, indicting the accused therein for various offences including an offence under Section 308 of the IPC exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. In the other case, crime No.122/07, which, after committal, was numbered as S.C.No.148/09, the investigating officer filed a refer report to Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 4 treat it as false. On the refer report, notice was given to the de facto complainant, CW1 (the present additional 2nd respondent), who, thereupon objected to such closing of the case contending that the report filed to refer the case was false and no further investigation was done in the crime. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and examining the refer report filed in Crime No.122/07 with the materials already available on record in that case found that the reasons stated by the Circle Inspector of Police in the refer report are thoroughly unsatisfactory and it is not acceptable in the interests of justice. Propriety, legality and correctness of the order so passed by the learned Sessions Judge, turning down the refer report after further investigation of the circle inspector of police, is challenged in the revision by the 1st accused in the case. 6. The de facto complainant in crime No.122/07 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court has been impleaded as Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 5 additional 2nd respondent in the revision. On such impleadment, notice given, he has entered appearance. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Sessions Judge should have accepted the refer report filed after conducting further investigation of the crime especially where such report clearly shows that no offence was made out against the accused is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that sufficient and convincing reasons have been stated by the learned Sessions Court why the refer report filed in the counter case is unsatisfactory and, thus, unacceptable. Going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it is seen, he has examined the materials on record and on such examination found that the statement of witnesses, F.I.Statement and wound certificate disclose that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused named therein for various offences under the Penal Code. It is within the Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 6 province of the court, before which, the refer report is filed to accept or reject the report and proceed with the case. So far as the rejection of the report and proceeding with the case, necessarily, application of mind of the court with reference to such report and the materials in the case and an order reflecting why the report is unacceptable and the case has to proceed further has to be passed. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that the report filed after further investigation by the Circle Inspector of police indicated that such investigating officer had commented upon the statement of witnesses as contradictory and not reliable. It is not clear from the order whether the circle inspector of police, in the course of further investigation, has again recorded the statements of the witnesses, who had been questioned earlier and on the basis of which the final report was filed previously in the case. However, having regard to the fact that the two crimes have been registered one as the main case and the other as counter, presenting two different versions of the incident, and such cases have been committed for trial on the basis of the final reports presented after investigation, when one Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 7 of the cases is sought to be referred as false on further investigation, there should be sufficient and convincing reasons satisfying the court to act upon such refer report. Evidently, the refer report presented by the Circle Inspector of police after going through the materials on record of the case was found quite unsatisfactory to the learned Sessions Judge, who has, as already stated, found materials in the record to hold that a trial of the accused in the case to proceed against them for various offences disclosed by the materials is warranted to meet the ends of justice. When that is stated to be so and nothing has been shown in what way the conclusion so formed suffers from any infirmity, I find that exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, is not called for. Revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.2637/2010 8