LAWS(KER)-2009-6-223

K MOIDU MAMMOO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 26, 2009
K MOIDU MAMMOO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the Correct procedure to be followed, by a Sessions Court after closing fee evidence of the prosecution under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.PC.') and before proceeding to hear arguments under Section 234 Cr.P.C What is the effect of non-compliance with the mandate of Sections 232 and 233 Cr.P.C Are the procedural stipulations mandatory As soon as an omission/infraction of these provisions occurs, does it ipso facto vitiate the proceedings obliging the superior courts to set aside the verdict and concede acquittal to the accused or remand the case to the Sessions Court to recommence proceedings from that vitiated stage Is proof of prejudice or possibility thereof in the facts of the given case to be insisted before such verdicts are set aside These are the questions that arise for consideration before us in this Crl.R.P.

(2.) The Assistant Sessions Judge in a prosecution under Section 306 IPC rendered a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, The challenge before the Sessions Court was rejected and the appeal was dismissed, The accused has challenged the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in this revision petition. The matter went before the Bench of the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice V.K. Bali felt that the question whether the trial is vitiated for mere non-observance of the procedure prescribed under Section 232 Cr.P.C deserves consideration by a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement Accordingly, the matter was referred to a Division Bench by order of reference dated 15/11/2006 under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act

(3.) A Division Bench considered the question and perceived an apparent conflict between the decisions of the Division Bench in Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2006 1 KerLT 78 and Ramachandran v. State of Kerala,2005 3 KerLT 89 at page 75, Accordingly the Bench passed the order of reference dated 12/12/06 and thus the matter has come up before us for consideration.