HARI DAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the criminal trial just a complicated forensic game with accent only on compliance with complex rules? IS there no mission of discovery of truth for the stake holders in a criminal trial? Should not the indictee be obliged to assist the truth discovery process by revealing the true facts, at least to the court at the stage of trial? Does he have a right to remain arrogantly silent and non co-operative in the process of truth discovery before court? Should not the Indian jurisprudence look for a third desi (native) alternative for administration of criminal justice-other than the Anglo Saxon adversarial and the continental accuisitorial ones, which can cater better to the needs of our society and which will rhyme better with our native commonsense and sense of justice? Should not bold efforts and initiatives in this direction start at least now-after Law India has completed about six and half decades of independent existence? These thoughts remain with us when we part with this case and we felt it apposite to give expression to the same before we start the dictation.

(2.) TO the more mundane and immediate questions raised by Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the appellant now; Did the court below err in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of PW1? Is the accused entitled for the benefit of doubt for the reason that the prosecution has not placed the entire materials before Court? Is the accused entitled to the right of private defence? At any rate, is not the accused entitled to the mitigative protection of Exception I and/or Exception 4 of S.300 I.P.C.?

(3.) INVESTIGATION commenced with registration of Ext.P9 F.I.R. on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I. statement lodged by PW1, the sister of the deceased. INVESTIGATION was completed and it was PW12, the Investigating Officer, who filed the final report/charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after observing all legal formalities, committed the case to the court of session. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence alleged against both accused. The accused person denied the charges that were framed against them by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14 and proved Exts.P1 to P30. M.Os. 1 to 10 were also marked.