SHYNI MOOLAYIL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioners herein are accused 2 and 3 in Calendar Case, C.C. No. 818/2013 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba, pertaining to Crime No. 199/2013 of Payyavoor Police Station, Kannur district. The offences involved in this case are those under Secs.447, 427 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 5.6.2013 at 1.30 p.m. the accused persons trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and destroyed the wall of that property and thereby caused loss of Rs. 500/- to the defacto complainant. According to the petitioners, they had appeared before the court below and pleaded not guilty on 26.3.2014. Now as both the petitioners are women, that the 1st petitioner has now got an employment opportunity at Cypress and she has to renew her passport for going abroad, the petitioners do not now want to proceed with the trial of the case on merits and according to them, they are ready to plead guilty. So the petitioners filed a petition to permit them to plead guilty before the court below as per Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1116/2015. But the court below dismissed said Crl.M.P. No. 1116/2015 on 9.2.2015. According to the petitioners, the said order is not legally sustainable and it is illegal and perverse and that the petitioners have every right to opt not to contest the case on merits and to plead guilty, as this would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution, who themselves are insisting that the petitioners are guilty.

(3.) It is further pointed out that it has been held in the decisions of this Court as in Santhosh v. State of Kerala, 2003 1 KerLT 795, that the accused can withdraw his claim to contest the trial on merits and plead guilty at any time during the trial. The petitioners would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another, 1992 3 SCC 700, wherein it has been held that on the accused pleading guilty, conviction can be founded upon confession/admission of guilt made by the accused at any stage of the trial including the stage of making statement under Sec.313 and that while acting upon the plea of guilt of the accused, court must approach with caution and circumspection to ensure that the plea is clear and unqualified and the admission of the facts constitutes the offences, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case.