ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the order dated 8.8.2011 in Crl.M.P. No.4482 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, whereby the court below dismissed a private complaint under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code

(2.) The private complaint was laid against two police officers. At the relevant time, the accused were Head Constable and Sub Inspector of Police, Panthalam respectively. On the basis of the first information statement given by the complainant, the first accused registered Crime No.498 of 2006. FIS was laid before the court and the court numbered it as C.C. No.1042 of 2006. The second accused had conducted the investigation, completed the same and laid charge before court.

(3.) The information which led to the registration of Crime No. 498 of 2006 given by the complainant was in respect of an incident that took place on 7.11.2006 at about 8 a.m. when the complainant was returning home, one Rajan, his son Kuttan and one Saji assaulted the complainant with a broken brick. As a result of the assault he lost three teeth and his nose was bitten and injured. Further allegation is that he was thereafter kicked by the assailants. Immediately he had to be removed to the hospital. First accused is said to have taken the first information statement from the hospital. It was read over to the complainant through another person and he signed the same. However, when the complainant saw the FIS and FIR from the court and the final report therein, to his dismay he found that his statement has been substituted by a statement with his forged signature. Both the accused were fully aware of the replacement of the statement and both had conspired along with the assailants to do the same. By the FIS a totally different picture of the incident was placed before court and also that one of the accused stood deleted from the final report though he had been named at the time of giving first information statement. It is alleged that without conducting a proper investigation, and recording the proper statements of witnesses, and making sure that the witnesses cited will speak in favour of the accused when examined in court, the second accused had submitted the final report. Though initially the FIR was for offences punishable under Sections 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, consciously the 1st accused and 2nd accused made sure that Section 326 is deleted and substituted it with Section 325 and the accused were given bail from the police station itself. Further Crime No.499 of 2006 was registered against the complainant which was taken on file as C.C.1036 of 2006 with false allegations. The accused in the private complaint connived and conspired together to ensure the acquittal of the accused in C.C.1042 of 2006 thereby shirking from their official duty creating false, forged and fabricated records and therefore proceedings may be taken against the accused for appropriate offences.