IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 548 of 2006(C) ------------------------------ CP.20/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED. ------------------------------------------------------ ANTU, S/O.THATTIL MANDIL DEVASYA, CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, VEPPUZHA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): STATE. ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.548 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11 th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.409 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Thrissur, challenges the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Session by resort to Section 323 read with 209 Cr.P.C after finding that the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is also made out. 2. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No.261/1999 of Anthikkad Police Station. The above crime was registered for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, consequent on the suicide committed by one Raji after killing her 4 year old son allegedly on account of the matrimonial cruelty committed by the petitioner. The case was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thrissur for the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. After taking cognizance of the said offence the learned Magistrate took the case on file as Crl.R.P.No. 548 of 2006 2 C.C.No.409 of 2001. 3. Consequent on the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the Magistrate for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of his case. The prosecution altogether examined 20 witnesses as Pws.1 to 20 and got marked 12 documents as P1 to P12. Pws.1 to 5, who are respectively the father of the deceased, the mother of the deceased, two sisters of the deceased and the mother of the accused, were the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. But, all of them turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution to any extend. The other witnesses are either witnesses to the mahasars or official witnesses. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the case stood posted for the examination of the witnesses under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. It was at that stage that the Magistrate suddenly came to the conclusion that the evidence in the case discloses the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and converted the C.C.case into C.P.No.20 of 2005 and Crl.R.P.No. 548 of 2006 3 resorted to Section 323 Cr.P.C. by deciding to commit the case to the Court of Session. 5. I have gone through the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. When PWs.1 to 5 who are the occurrence witnesses have all turned unfriendly to the prosecution without supporting the prosecution to any extend, it is surprising that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that from the evidence in the case an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out. He was invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C without any basis whatsoever. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.4.05, committing the case to the Court of Sessions is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall bring the case to a logical conclusion by disposing of C.C.No.409/2001, which shall stand revived and restored to file before the learned Magistrate. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. Dated this the 11 th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj