IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1157 of 2008() ---------------------------------- S.C. NO. 447/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ ANTONY, S/O.OUSEPH, KAITHATHARA VEEDU, KOOTTUKADU KARA, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI. SANU MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1157 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the st day of April, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in S.C. No. 447 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur in a murder case after the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, filed C.M.P. No. 106 of 2008 for giving a direction to the Village Officer examined as PW14 for preparing another site plan showing the height of the floor of the house of occurrence. This, according to the defence, was necessary to substantiate his defence that the diseased sustained fatal injury in the course of a scuffle and the height of the floor of the house was not given either in the scene mahazar or in the site plan prepared by PW14. Hence the application. The said application was rejected by the trial judge as per the impugned order dated 01.04.2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the decision reported in Koshy alias Baby vs. the State (1991 Crl.L.J 1776) to contend for the position that the trial Judge is not devoid of the power to grant the prayer which was made by the petitioner. 4. The facts in the above reported case are entirely different. The accused cannot ask for collection of evidence at the fag end of trial to substantiate his defence. If the omission, if any, in the scene CRL.R.P. NO. 1157/2008 : 2: mahazar or in the site plan regarding the height of the floor of the house is a matter on which the prosecution was bound to place before the court, the accused can certainly take advantage of the same. But, he cannot at the fag end of the trial, fish out evidence on the ground that the same is necessary to advance his defence. The occurrence in this case took place on 06.11.2001. It was after 7 years of the occurrence that the accused wants the court to direct the village officer to inspect the house of occurrence for the purpose of collecting certain details which the accused wants for substantiating his contentions. The request of the petitioner was evidently to delay and protract the further trial of the case. He had ample opportunities right from the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C to ask for additional details if the same were necessary. Without having resorted to that, he cannot now dislocate the trial by filing such a petition at the fag end of the trial. I am fully in accord with the conclusions reached by the trial Judge. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1157/2008 : 3: