IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3318 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/09/2008 IN CRMP 1565/2007 IN SC.227/2006 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER:ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MURALIDHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUNNI, EDATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHIRANADU COLONY, PULLUT CHAPPARA DESAM, KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR. 2. THANKA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.MURALIDHARAN, EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHIRANADU COLONY, PULLUT CHAPPARA DESAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3318 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in S.C.227/2006 on the file of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. They are the father and mother of the first accused. The prosecution case was that first accused married deceased Gayathri and they were residing at the matrimonial home along with petitioners and while so she was mentally and physically tortured and harassed by all the accused including the petitioners and because of the cruelty she had to leave the matrimonial home and she started living at her paternal home and while so also harassment and cruelty continued. Subsequently first accused committed murder of Gayathri. It was alleged that all the accused committed the offence under sections 302 and 498A read with section 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court, petitioners CRRP 3318/2008 2 filed Crl.M.P.1565/2007 for an order of discharge under section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 1.9.2008 dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that as against petitioners who are the parents of first accused is that they committed cruelty to the deceased wife of first accused while she was residing along with the petitioners at her matrimonial home which is at Kodungallur and even if any offence was committed by them it could only be at Kodungallur and therefore petitioners cannot be tried by Sessions Court, Ernakulam. It was also argued that as against petitioners there is no allegation of causing the death of Gayathri and the very prosecution case was that it was the first accused who caused the death by inflicting fatal CRRP 3318/2008 3 injury at Ernakulam and therefore petitioners cannot be tried for the offence under section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and learned Sessions Judge therefore should have discharged the petitioners under section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P and another (2007) 1 SCC 262). 4. If the material on record, if unrebutted is insufficient for a reasonable conviction accused are entitled to be discharged under section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the court on the materials are satisfied that commission of an offence is probable, charge is to be framed. It is not for the prosecution to prove beyond doubt the offence alleged. Only a prima facie case is to be seen. If there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused on the materials furnished, it is a case for discharge. CRRP 3318/2008 4 5. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that based on the allegations raised against the petitioners the cruelty if any committed was only at Kodungallur, as pointed out by learned Sessions Judge the submission cannot be accepted. The prosecution case is that it was in furtherance of the common intention the first accused along with the petitioners, they harassed and tortured deceased Gayathri at her matrimonial home. If the prosecution case was that the cruelty meted out to deceased Gayathri was only at Kodungallur and did not continue thereafter, the submissions could have been accepted. But the prosecution case is that eventhough Gayathri was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and started living at her paternal house, the harassment continued till she was killed at Ernakulam. The allegation as against the petitioners also extends eventhough the deceased had left Kodungallur. In such circumstance, the decision of the Apex Court in Manish Ratan's case (supra) has no application on the facts of the CRRP 3318/2008 5 case. As it cannot be said that materials as alleged if unrebutted are insufficient to convict the accused, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order rejecting discharge. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions at the evidence stage. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006