ABDUL KHADER Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 953 of 2015 are the original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in S.C. No. 245 of 2007 of the Court of Session, Manjeri. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 952 of 2015 is the accused No. 13, the petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 959 of 2015 are the accused Nos. 6 and 15, the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 962 of 2015 is the accused No. 11 and the petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 967 of 2015 are the accused Nos. 7,8 and 9 in the said case. The offences involved in the case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 326 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. This is in fact a counter case to another case involving sessions offences. That is why the case was tried in the Court of Session. The original accused Nos. 2, 10, 12 and 14 faced trial before the learned IIIrd additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Manjeri) and obtained a judgment of acquittal on merits on 30.7.2009 when the prosecution failed to adduce any satisfactory and believable evidence proving the case. The case against these petitioners was split up at different stages. The case against the accused No. 13 is now pending as S.C. No. 356 of 2012. The case against the accused Nos. 6 and 15 stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P. 6 of 2012. The case against the accused Nos. 7,8 and 9 stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P. 34 of 2008, the case against accused No. 11 in S.C. 428 of 2010 and the case against the accused No. 1,3 and 4 stands transferred to the long pending register as L.P. No. 19 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. These petitioners now seek orders quashing the prosecution as against them on the ground that the very substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost by the acquittal of the others on merits, and the prosecution cannot in the given circumstance, in any manner, improve the case as against them, if it goes to trial. Annexure-B is copy of the judgment in S.C. No. 245 of 2007. The prosecution examined all the material witnesses in that case and also exhibited some documents. No material object was marked during trial.

(2.) In paragraph 16 of the Annexure-B judgment, as regards the evidence given by the de facto complainant (PW1), the trial court found thus:

(3.) The trial court acquitted the accused on merits mainly on three grounds. One is the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The other is the difference between medical evidence and ocular evidence regarding the nature and type of the injuries sustained, and the third is the material inconsistency between the evidence of material witnesses. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the trial court held thus: