IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1157 of 2008()
1. ANTONY, S/O.OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/04/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
Crl.R.P. No. 1157 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the stday 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: