RANJITH K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 1874/2012 of Mannarghat Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 353, 332 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 9.12.2012 there was a dispute between the RSS activists and DYFI activists. On getting intimation Police arrived and they too were attacked and in that incident some of the Police Officers suffered injury including fracture.

(2.) The petitioner would point out that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated. In support of his case, he made available a Medical Certificate issued from the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Mannarghat, showing that on the date of incident there was a scuffle between the two groups RSS and DYFI and he had suffered injuries and he was taken to the Hospital at 6.50 p.m. It is pointed out that the Taluk Headquarters Hospital is about 7 kilometres away from the place of occurrence and that would indicate that the petitioner would not have been present at the place of the incident, in which he is shown as accused.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and pointed out that serious injury has been suffered by one of the Police Officers and the matter may not be taken lightly. True, the allegations are serious. However, the petitioner has produced a certificate which indicates that he may not have been there in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. There is no specific overt act attributed against him. The allegation is that 50 people attacked the Police and injured the Police and damaged the Police vehicle. In the light of the certificate produced for perusal by the petitioner, his case stands on a different footing than the other accused in the case. It may be that he may not have been there in the place of incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case for this court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed as follows: