The fourth accused in Crime No.177/1994 of Sooranadu police station and the 6th accused in SC.No.650/2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Karunagappally is the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner along with three other accused persons were charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sooranadu police station alleging offences under Sections 447, 307, 324, and 115 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent defacto complainant alleging that at the abetment made by the present petitioner, the other accused persons have attacked him with an intention to commit murder and caused injuries to him, thereby all of them have committed the above said offences. 2. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was committed to the sessions court where it was taken as SC.No.44/1997 before the Sessions Court, Kollam and it was made over to Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam for disposal. Since the present petitioner was absconding in that case, the case against him was split up and other accused persons were tried and they were acquitted by Annexure-A1 judgment and the case against the present petitioner was refiled on his appearance as SC.No.650/2012. After appearance, he fled Crl.M.P.No.22/2014 for discharge and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by the impugned Annexure-A2 order dismissed the application which is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this revision.
3. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel, Smt. R.S. Sreevidhya appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the case against accused 1 to 3 ended in acquittal as there was no evidence against them and since persons who have committed the offence have been acquitted, no purpose will be served by proceeding against the present petitioner who is said to be the abettor for committing the offence. So, the court below was not justified in dismissing the application.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the case against the other accused persons was ended in acquittal is not a ground for acquitting the present petitioner as offence alleged against him is abetment and even if the prosecution was not able to prove that a particular person has committed the offence, if abetment can be independently proved, the petitioner can be proceed against.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, Crime No.177/1994 of Sooranadu police station was registered against four accused persons including the revision petitioner alleging offences under Sections 447, 307, 324 and 115 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, After investigation, final report was filed and the case was committed to the sessions court by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta as per the order in CP.No.2/1996 and that was taken on file as SC.No.44/1997 and that was made over to Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam for disposal. Since the present revision petitioner did not appear, the case against him was split up and the case against accused 1 to 3 were proceed with and it is seen from Annexure-A1 judgment that since the prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused persons as the person who had committed the crime, they were acquitted and the case against the present petitioner was split up and it is seen that it was later refiled as SC.No.650/2012 and pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Karunagapally now. The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.22/2014 for discharge on the ground of acquittal of other accused persons.
7. It is settled law that acquittal of other accused persons is not a ground for even acquittal of the remaining accused, who did not face trial as has been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552.). Further at the time of framing charge, the court need only look into the allegations made and if it is satisfied that there is ground to proceed against, then even there is suspicion of commission of offence by any of the accused persons, court can reject the application for discharge. This was so held in the decision reported in Shoraj Singh Ahalawat & others v. State of Uttar Predesh & another (AIR 2013 SC 52). So merely because other persons were acquitted is not a ground for discharge of the remaining accused who did not face trial. Further, how far the acquittal relevant in this case is a matter for appreciation of evidence by the court later along with the other evidence to be adduced by the prosecution as against the present petitioner. The case against the present petitioner is abetment to commit offence which is an independent offence. Even if identification of other accused persons were not proved by the prosecution, if they can able to prove by independent evidence that defacto complainant was attacked by some persons on the basis of the abetment made by the present petitioner, then court can consider that evidence and enter on conviction independently. So under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application for discharge. Any observations made by this Court for disposing the revision is only made for the purpose of deciding this revision alone and it cannot be treated as an opinion formed by this Court regarding merits of the case and the court below is at liberty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the basis of evidence in the matter untrammelled by the observations made by this Court while disposing the revision. Considering the fact that original case is of the year 1994 and the sessions case is of the year 2012, the court below is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim order of stay granted by this Court is vacated and Crl.M.A.No.2769/2014 is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge