KRISHNADAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been initially arrayed as accused No.1 among the three accused in the instant Crime No.383/2019 of Nenmara Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant on 26.9.2019 at about 6.50 p.m in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 23.9.2019 at about 9 p.m. The Police, after investigation, has deleted accused Nos.2 and 3 from the accused array and now the petitioner is the sole accused. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 27.9.2019 and after his remand, has been under detention since then.

(2.) The short of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant are living in the immediate neighbourhood and that out of prior enmity, on 23.9.2019 at about 9 p.m., when the petitioner/accused was sitting in his residence, the defacto complainant, who was walking in the nearby pathway, had lit his torch at the face of the petitioner/accused and asked who it is and enraged that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, caught hold of her shirt, slapped on his face and had beaten with an iron rod on his head and when the defacto complainant's father had intervened, the petitioner/accused had beaten him also with iron rod and that later, the person, who was initially arrayed as accused No.2 is said to have manhandled the mother of the defacto complainant and the accused persons thereby have committed the above said offences etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations are false and baseless and that, the very fact that the Police, after investigation, has already removed accused Nos.2 and 3 from the accused array would clearly show that even the Police does not have full faith in the veracity of the allegations made by the defacto complainant. Further that going by the nature of this case, the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary, as he has already suffered detention for the last 20 days and that he may be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions.