HARI G.KUTTAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1095/2019 of Adoor Police station, Pathanamthitta District. The said crime was originally registered on 30.4.2019 based on the FIS given by the victims at hospital on 29.4.2019. The offences originally alleged in the said FIR are those under Secs.452 and 324 of the IPC. The Police after investigation have now included offences as per Secs.450 and 393 of the I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that, the two victims are husband and wife, aged about 76 and 70 years respectively were staying alone and that on 29.2.2019 at about 7:30 p.m., due to rain there was no electricity connection, somebody had knocked on their door. The male victim got up and opened the door and asked who he was and a person who fully covered his face by wearing a helmet had entered the room and thereafter with a steel rod, had hit on his face and knee and when the lady victim came there, the accused using the same steel rod, hit her on her head and nose and he had immediately left the place and seeing the obstruction by the victim, he had disappeared in the darkness. Hearing the cries of the aged couple, some nearby people gathered there. Both the couple were hospitalized on the same day as they suffered serious injuries and the male victim had suffered lacerated wounds on the right eye brow and abrasions on the ring finger and left knee and the lady victim suffered lacerated wounds on the left side of the head and nose. The FIS was recorded from them on the same day, after they were hospitalised and later the crime has been registered on 30.4.2019, wherein the accused has been arrayed as an unnamed person. After the lady had recovered, Police had taken Sec.161 statement from her on 12.05.2019, at which point of time she disclosed that after hearing their noise and cry, some people in the locality had come there and informed that somebody was seen running immediately after the incident and the petitioner herein (Hari) whose, grandmother is working as a maid in the house of the couple and his friend one Rejoy had also come there to enquire about the incident. Later, Police had questioned the said Rejoy who had disclosed to the Police that at around 7.30 pm on the same day, petitioner had come to his house and told him that he had left his motor cycle near the house of the victims and that Rejoy might also accompany him to take back the motor cycle and both of them had gone to the house of the victims and both of them had entered into the house of the victims also and later the petitioner had taken the motor cycle which was parked near their house and on hearing that Police might come there, he had gone away with the motor cycle. Thereafter, the Police has questioned the petitioner, whereupon he has given the confession statement confirming the version of Rejoy and thereupon the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the said crime. The petitioner has been arrested on 9.6.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 66 days after his remand on 9.6.2019. Further that, his sister's marriage is proposed to be conducted on 1.9.2019, and that the petitioner is a very young person hardly at the age of 20 years, and that this Court may in the interest of justice order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.