IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2668 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRMP 3154/11 IN SC.NO.350/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------- NINAN JACOB, S/O.K.T.CHACKO, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, AREEPPARAMBU P.O., MANARCADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARCADU POLICE STATION, PIN- 686 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2668 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the dismissal of an application moved by the petitioner seeking his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code'. He is being prosecuted with two other accused for offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case on committal, as it involves an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, is now before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam for trial and disposal. Petitioner/second accused, on his appearance before that court, had moved an application under Section 227 of the Code contending that on the materials placed by the prosecution no offence has been made out for his trial by the court. After hearing his counsel and also the learned public prosecutor, the learned sessions Judge turned down his plea of discharge. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence involved in the case was only a motor accident Crl. R.P No.2668 OF 2011 2 involving a vehicle, a jeep, driven by the father of the petitioner, in which he is alleged to have travelled as a passenger with the other accused A3, as and when the vehicle hit against a motor bike, wherein three persons were riding, including the de facto complainant. The essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 326 and also 308 of the Penal Code are totally absent in the case and, further more, if at all any mens rea in relation to such offence could be imputed, that could be only against the accused and not against the passengers travelling in the jeep, is the submission of the counsel. The circumstances surrounding the occurrence clearly would indicate that there was no joining of mind for the commission of the offence imputed against the accused, to manacle them with joint culpability as under Section 34 of the Penal Code, is the further submission of the counsel. 3. Perusing the order passed by the learned sessions Judge, it appears, the prosecution case is that the de facto complainant was returning on a bike with two others, after visiting the police station in connection with the case registered over an assault by the second accused. The de facto complainant is stated to have sustained injuries in a brutal attack made by the petitioner the previous day. A Crl. R.P No.2668 OF 2011 3 strong case of motive against the petitioner and also the other accused for the occurrence involved is the basis or foundation for their prosecution for the offences imputed against them. When such be the case, where an inquiry, more so, hearing under Section 226 and 227 of the Code is made to consider the question whether framing of charge to proceed with the trial of the accused is warranted in a sessions case a meticulous consideration of the documents tendered by the prosecution at that stage is not required. What the sessions judge at that stage forms is only an opinion as to whether there is reasonable ground to presume the guilt of the accused for the offence imputed, which is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court to frame charge against him and to proceed with the trial. Whatever defence available to the accused is a matter that has to be considered at the stage of trial. In a case where a plea of discharge was canvassed by the accused, unless the challenges raised touch upon the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the offence, the court is not expected to state any reasons for declining such request. On the other hand, if a plea of discharge is upheld, necessarily it has to be supported by reasons by the court. Perusing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I Crl. R.P No.2668 OF 2011 4 find that the opinion formed by him, which is based on the report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code by the police and also the documents produced thereto, does not suffer with any infirmity. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge