RAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.25/2008 of Adhur Police Station. According to the petitioners, accused nos.1 and 4 in the very same crime faced prosecution in CC No.771/2008 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod and as per Annexure-A3 judgment, they are acquitted. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are also entitled to get the benefit of Annexure-A3 judgment and no purpose will be served if the petitioners face prosecution. Hence, the present Crl.M.C. is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.25/2008 of Adhur Police Station, which is now pending as CC No.1826/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-1, Kasaragod.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) IN the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully perused Annexure A3, particularly, paragraph 14 of the above judgment. The learned Magistrate, who undertook the trial, specifically stated in paragraph 14 of Annexure-A3 that PW1 has stated that he was beaten by accused no.1 with a stick and he does not remember whether he was beaten by any other persons. According to the learned Magistrate, PW2 during his cross-examination stated that all accused had beaten PW1 and the learned Magistrate pointed out the contradiction with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as to who actually aggravated. The learned Magistrate has also found that the prosecution has failed to cite any witness from the locality even though near to the place of occurrence, there are several shop rooms and government institutions. The learned Magistrate also pointed out that Adhur Police Station is situated adjacent to the place of occurrence and the Police Station can be seen from the place of occurrence, but, no Police came to the scene of crime. On the basis of the above serious contradiction among the prosecution witnesses and the lacuna on the part of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate concluded that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and accordingly, accused nos.1 and 4 were found not guilty, and they are accordingly acquitted.