IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1630 of 2011() ---------------------- CRIME NO. 272/2001 OF SHORANUR POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONER / SECOND ACCUSED : --------------------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 31 YEARS KUTHIKADAN VEEDU, KUZHIYANAMKUNNU, VADANAMKURUSSI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , SHORANUR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.ANURADHA, W/O.SUDARSAN, POOVATHINKAL VEEDU, KUZHIYANAMKUNNU, VADANAMKURUSSI POST PIN 679 124. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1630 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE FIR 272/2001 DT. 14-11-2001 OF SHORANUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED IN CRIME NO. 272/2001 OF SHORANUR POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM. ANNEXURE A3 : PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CC 737/2001 DT. 26-2-2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM. ANNEXURE A4 : PHOTO COPY OF EXT.P-2 (ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE) RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1630 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.272 of 2001 of Shornur Police Station in C.C.No.107 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam for offences punishable under Sec. 341 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 08.11.2001 at about 7.45hrs petitioner and the first accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the second respondent and voluntarily caused hurt to him with a stone. Incident arose on a dispute regarding collection of water from a public tap. Petitioner requests to quash proceeding against him on the strength of Annexure-A3, judgment acquitting the first accused. Learned counsel submitted that Annexure-A3, judgment has destroyed the substratum of prosecution case and hence sending petitioner for trial is a wasteful exercise. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner was not available for trial along with first accused, case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.107 of 2007. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.M.C.No.1630 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. I have gone through Annexure-A3, judgment. It is seen that prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 to prove the alleged incident. Of them the second respondent as PW1 and his witness, PW2 supported the prosecution. PW4 did not support. PW3 is the Medical Officer who examined PW1 and issued Annexure-A4, medical certificate. Learned Magistrate after considering evidence of accused 1 and 2 found that there are apparent contradictions which make their version unbelievable and accordingly acquitted the first accused. 3. It is seen from paragraph 14 of Annexure-A3, judgment that when the stone which police produced in Court and with which petitioner is said to have hit the second respondent/PW1 was shown to him, he denied that it was with the said stone that petitioner (allegedly) hit him. He claimed that it was a still bigger stone with which petitioner (allegedly) hit. It is pertinent to note that in Annexure-A4, medical certificate the cause of injury is stated as “a group of persons pushing and squeezing the neck on 08.11.2001 at about 8a.m at Kuzhiyanamkunnu”. As against that, the subsequent version of second respondent is that he was hit with stone by the petitioner. It is also seen from paragraph 15 of Annexure-A3, judgment that Crl.M.C.No.1630 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate took note of the apparent contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and held that their versions are contradictory and inconsistent which made it difficult to believe and held the first accused not guilty. That means, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was founded to be unreliable on account of contradictions and inconsistencies in their version. If that be so, I am inclined to accept contention of petitioner that Annexure-A3, judgment affected substratum of the prosecution. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that sending petitioner for trial is a wasteful exercise. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.107 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-