KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No.52 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. The allegation against him was that in the small hours of 26.8.2012 he trespassed into the room in a shed in which his co-worker Sreedharan was residing and attempted to murder him by striking with a chopper. Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence adduced by the prosecution sufficient to prove the case against the appellant and convicted him of the both offences. For the offence under Section 307 IPC the Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months, and for the offence under Section 450 IPC to undergo rigorous for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. There is a direction to pay the fine amount, if realised, to the victim.

(2.) In the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge the victim has been referred to as CW2. The learned Sessions Judge did not take notice of Rule 65 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which runs as follows:

(3.) The rule prohibits the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed being described by his position in the case as prosecutor or witness and mandates that he shall be described only by his name in the charge. This is more often violated than complied with. There is a purpose behind every rule. A charge is framed for the purpose of giving notice to the accused as to the case he has to meet. To the extent possible there shall not be any vague statement in the charge. But since it is clear from the evidence that the misdescription of the victim in the charge has not caused prejudice to the appellant, it is only to be ignored.