KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the convict in S.C. No. 1790/2002 of the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The case had originated on a final report laid by the Additional Sub Inspector, Kundara police station in Crime No. 770/2000 of that police station. The prosecution allegation against the appellant is that on 22.12.2000, at 4.30 P.M., he was found in illegal possession of 70 litres of wash and other paraphernalia for manufacturing arrack in a place by name Koovarakkavu, a grove in Puliyila desom in Nedumbana panchayat within the limits of Kundara police station. It is stated that while the Additional Sub Inspector, Kundara police station and party were engaged in investigation of a crime, they happened to come across a discreet information about the acts of the appellant in making preparations for manufacturing arrack in the said place, which is adjacent to his place of residence. When the police party proceeded to the place, the appellant took to his heels so that he could not be apprehended. The incident had happened at 4.30 P.M., on 22.12.2000. After preparing a mahazar and taking sample from the wash, remaining quantity was destroyed at the place itself; the utensils and other implements were seized under Ext.P1 mahazar. Then the police party returned to the station and registered the crime. The appellant was arrested on 25.12.2000 and remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kollam, where C.P. No.20/2001 was taken on file. After completing the procedural formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Kollam from where the matter was made over to the trial Court.

(2.) The appellant was on bail. He was defended by a counsel of his choice. After hearing counsel on both sides, when the charge was framed, read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove the allegations. Exts.P1 to P7 were also marked. After closing the evidence, when examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), he reiterated his innocence and submitted that the case was the offshoot of enmity of one Thulaseedharan Pillai, member of the panchayat with whom he had a civil dispute. According to the appellant, the police was foisting a false case against him at the instance of the said Thulaseedharan Pillai. As it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C, he was called upon to enter on his defence but there was no evidence in defence.