IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2013 of 2008()
1. RAFEEK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
======================================
CRL.R.P. NO.2013 OF 2008
======================================
Dated this the 20th day of June 2008
ORDER
Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in
S.C.No.29/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court III (Adhoc), Manjeri for offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 104, 120B, 212 and 302 read with
Section 149 IPC, challenge the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by
the trial court holding that the case was not one which could be
considered as having no evidence so as to enable the court to
pass an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. as against
A2, A3 and A7.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the
revision petitioners and therefore the revision petitioners should
have been acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.
3. Originally there were 15 accused persons. In the year
2004 the court below after trial found A1 to A8 guilty and
acquitted A9 to A15. In Crl. Appeals 2005 and 2017 of 2004 filed
CRRP 2013/2008 2
by A1 to A8 before this Court, as per common judgment dated
26.3.2007 this court set aside the conviction of A1 to A8 and
remanded the case to the court below for fresh examination of
the said accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. as it
was found that the earlier examination of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was defective. After the remit the trial court
examined A1 to A8 afresh. It was thereafter that the case was
heard under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The learned trial judge who had
a holistic view of the entire evidence before him was not satisfied
that this is a case of no evidence so as to record an order of
acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. He has, therefore, decided to
cross over to Section 233 Cr.P.C. by calling upon the accused to
enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence which they
might have in support thereof. It cannot be said that the above
view taken by the trial judge is wrong. No doubt, the question as
to whether there is any incriminating evidence against the
petitioners is a matter which will have to be considered after the
conclusion of the trial. Petitioners, as in the case of the other
accused persons, can be found guilty only for any overt act
committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in case the
CRRP 2013/2008 3
petitioners are also found to be members of the unlawful
assembly and they shared the common object. These are all
matters to be considered after trial. Since I do not find any
ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial
judge, this revision is dismissed without any observation on the
merits of the case.
Dated this the 20th day of June 2008
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/