JOHN VARGHESE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners in Crl. RP 3539/2008 is the first accused and revision petitioners in Crl. RP 3718/2008 are accused 2 to 5 in SC 309/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, (CBI/SPE-II), Ernakulam. REVISION petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the defence under Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, framing charge for the offence under Section 304 IPC.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that first accused was working as Sub Inspector of Police, second accused as Head Constable and accused 3 to 5 as Constables of Alappuzha South Police Station during 1998 and in furtherance of their common intention they arrested deceased Thangal Kunju on 08/08/1998 and took him into custody from his residence and while he was in custody they voluntarily caused hurt to Thangal Kunju on his head and legs and also caused hurt to his wife Radhamani and grievous hurt to their son Binoj, by using lathi and hands and wrongfully confined deceased Thangal Kunju and inflicted the injuries which caused his death and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 220, 323, 324, 325, 447, 451, 466, 304 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the accused appeared, as provided under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure prosecution and the defence were heard. The accused together had filed Crl. MP 1294/2008 for an order of discharge of the offence under Section 304 of IPC and contended that as no offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court is involved, the case is to be transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed Crl. MP 1294/2008 holding that charge for the offences under Section 220, 323, 324, 325, 447, 451, 466, 304 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC was already framed. Revision petitions are filed challenging the dismissal of the application as well as framing of charge for the offence under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for the CBI justified the order passed by the Sessions Judge contending that when the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully confined the deceased and inflicted the injuries, the knowledge that it is likely to cause his death is to be imputed and therefore Sessions Judge was justified in framing charge for the offence under Section 304 IPC.