ASHRAF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.141/2014 of Vengara Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 447,323,324,326,427 and 307 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 12/2/2014 at around 21.40 hours, due to the previous enmity with the 3rd respondent, in furtherance of their common intention to cause his death, accused Nos.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the house of the 3rd respondent and assaulted him. Accused No.1 stabbed the 3rd respondent with a knife and accused No.3 had beaten him with a torch light. Accused No.4 swatted him with his hands and the 3rd respondent had sustained serious injuries due to the aforesaid assaults. It is also alleged that, accused Nos.1 to 4 smashed the window pane of the house and as a result of the same, the 2nd respondent suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5,000.00. Annexure-A is the final report submitted by the Police. The trial of the said case was conducted before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri in S.C.No.477/2014 wherein the 2nd accused alone participated. Annexure-B is the judgment passed after the said trial, as per which the 2nd accused was found not guilty as all the witnesses including the victim had turned hostile to the prosecution.

(3.) Later, the petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 3 approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.3322/2018. When the said Crl.MC was filed, the petitioners therein were directed to surrender before the trial court and take bail, as at the relevant time they were absconding. However, all the petitioners therein, except the petitioner herein, surrendered. The said Crl.M.C. was disposed of as per the order passed on 11/7/2018. In the said order, the prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 3 was quashed by this Court on the ground that consequent to the order of acquittal passed as per Annexure-B judgment in respect of the 2nd accused, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost and hence no fruitful purpose would be served, if the prosecution as against them is allowed to continue. However, the prayer of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender before the court despite a direction in this regard. Therefore, the said Crl.M.C. was dismissed as far as the petitioner herein is concerned. But it was observed in the said order that if the petitioner files a fresh application, it will be entertained only if he complies with the order dtd. 7/6/2018 in which the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court and seek bail.