IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2147 of 2007()
1. SUDARSANAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2147 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 302
I.P.C. The alleged incident took place as early as in 1993. Altogether
there were 4 accused persons. The petitioner and one other co-
accused were not available for trial. The petitioner is the 2nd accused.
Accused 1 and 4 faced trial. In the trial against those co-accused,
they were found not guilty and acquitted. Long later, the petitioner
has appeared before the court. Proceedings against him are
continuing. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that the proceedings against
him may be quashed.
2. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the
petitioner only submits that in the trial against the co-accused, certain
findings have been entered by the learned trial Judge, the advantage
of which must be conceded to the petitioner herein also. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the dictum in [Moosa v. Sub
Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 F.B] cannot be held to cover
the factual situation in this case. The learned Judge after trial in this
case had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
succeeded in explaining the genesis of the incident. That finding will
not be altered even if a separate trial is conducted. This in short is
the plea raised.
Crl.M.C.No.2147 of 2007 2
3. I am unable to accept the contentions raised at all. The
mere fact that the co-accused have secured acquittal in the trial held
against them is no reason for an absconding co-accused like the
petitioner to claim any benefit or advantage. The prosecution will still
be able to adduce all necessary evidence in support of their case.
Merely because in the earlier trial there was some laches, that will not
at all preclude the prosecution from adducing appropriate evidence in
the trial and other appropriate explanations. More over, I am not at
all satisfied that an absconding accused like the petitioner herein is
entitled to seek invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.
Such jurisdiction is to be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional
cases and that too in aid of justice. I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is not one person in whose favour such jurisdiction can or
ought to be invoked.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2147 of 2007 3