UNAIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the third accused in Crime No.270/2015 of Kalpetta Police Station for offences punishable under sections 109, 201, 212, 366, 366-A and 376(2) (I) read with section 34 of the IPC and section 3 (a) read with section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(2.) The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the accused enticed PWs 1 and 2, who are the two victims involved, to distant places in various vehicles and were sexually abused by the accused Nos.1 and 2. Pursuant to the crime registered, investigation was conducted and final report was laid. Cognizance was taken and all the accused except the petitioner herein faced the trial in SC.No.360/2015. They were acquitted. The petitioner herein did not participate in the criminal proceeding and hence the case against him was split up and is now pending as LP.No.1/2017 on the files of the Special Court for Trial of Offences Under POCSO Act and Children's Court (Additional Sessions Court-I), Kalpetta, Wayanad.

(3.) The Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner herein on a premise that the crucial witnesses in the crime turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Consequently, it resulted in the acquittal of all the accused, who had faced the trial, evidenced by Annexure-A5. According to the petitioner herein, the only allegation against him is that, he had driven an auto rickshaw in which the accused and the victims travelled for some distance. It was further contended by the learned counsel that he was arrayed as the accused only six days prior to the filing of the final report and by that time he had left India in connection with his employment. Hence he was not aware of the proceedings. Only recently he came to know about the pendency of the proceedings that the case against him was split up and is still pending. Hence the learned counsel contended that by virtue of the acquittal of the coaccused by the judgment in SC.No.360/2015, the substratum of the case has broken down and the benefit should enure to the petitioner herein also.