KUNHALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 4th accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 332 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he was a member of an unlawful assembly of persons who had allegedly thrown stones at a K.S.R.T.C bus, which was passing by. The petitioner along with co-accused was allegedly arrested by the police officials in the course of the incident in which they had allegedly committed the crime.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He happened to be present at the scene of the crime, a busy market centre, only because he had gone there to purchase medicine for his daughter. He has nothing to do with the incident that had taken place. He had been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused. Counsel brings to the notice of the Court certain news paper reports which show that the petitioner had complained even at the earliest stages that he was not involved in the incident.

(3.) The case diary has been placed before me for my perusal. The F.I statement as well as the statements of witness recorded do indicate that the miscreants who were allegedly found indulging in culpable overt acts were caught by the police personnel and arrested. They included the petitioner herein also. At the moment and with the available inputs, I do not find any warrant for invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court. Disputed questions of fact cannot obviously be attempted to be resolved by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court.