SUMESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the original 4th accused in C.C.No.57/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam involving the offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 354, 323 and 149 IPC. Pending the proceeding the second accused died, and the charge against him thus abated. The accused Nos.1,3 and 5 faced trial before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.57/2009, and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 10.07.2014, when the complainant and other witnesses did not effectively support the prosecution. Everybody disowned the earlier statement, and thus deposed against the prosecution case. Finding that there is absolutely no satisfactory material to incriminate the accused Nos.1,3 and 5, the learned Magistrate acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.1362/2014, when he remained consistently absent during trial. He now seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that the substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost by the acquittal of the others, and that continuance of the prosecution against them will not serve any purpose.

(2.) On a perusal of Annexure-C judgment in C.C.No.57/2009 of the court below, I find that the learned Magistrate acquitted the others when all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant practically turned hostile to the prosecution. Of course there is nothing to show that it was in terms of the settlement made out of court. Every witness gave evidence before the learned Magistrate disowning his earlier statements, and practically against the prosecution case. The defacto complainant or the independent witnesses could not depose what act of offence was committed by each of the accused, and how exactly or at whose hands exactly the complainant and her son sustained injuries. On an examination of the entire evidence given by the complainant and the material witness, the learned Magistrate found thus in paragraph 14 of the Annexure-C judgment.

(3.) On an examination of the Annexure-C judgment and the deposition given by the material witnesses, I find that continuance of the prosecution as against the petitioner will not serve any purpose. It will be a sheer waste of time because the prosecution cannot improve the case in any manner, and the witnesses also cannot help the prosecution, when they once disowned the case at the first round of trial. I find that the very substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost by the acquittal of the other accused as per the Annexure-C judgment.