Suresh Vs State of Kerala On 18 January, 2017
Suresh Vs State of Kerala On 18 January, 2017
Suresh Vs State of Kerala On 18 January, 2017
PRESENT:
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED
SURESH, S/O.KOCHUNNI,
KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, VALLISSERY DESOM,, AVINISSERY
VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
SMT.P.MAYA
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
ORDER
court below.
effect :-
being served upon him. After hearing the prosecution and the
Section 279 and 304A IPC, and the same when read over and
Prosecutor and the counsel for the defence, the court below
the prosecution.
accused contended at the outset that the trial in the case was
Section 279 and 304A IPC. The Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Thrissur, who has taken the final report on file, had
and the defence, framed a charge against the accused for the
extracted hereinbelow:-
made out, for the court to presume that the accused has
frame a charge against the accused and transfer the case for
the Chief Judicial Magistrate or as the case may be, the Judicial
shall be framed by itself against the accused and the trial shall
be proceeded with.
accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A, and
proceeded with the trial after framing the charge for the
and is void.
charged.
that the incident was occurred 30-35 metres away from the
Crl.A.No.633 of 2009
:-12-:
state that when reached at the spot, the victim was found
But, PW1 identified all the accused in the dock. His specific
case was that the Investigating Officer has not questioned him
street light as well as in the light that emanates from the bus.
the witness for the first time in the court and identification of
the incident in the street light and from the light available at
light during cross examination that PW3 had not stated those
does not describe whether the lights thereon were put on.
19. The specific case of PW3 in the box was that the
has not stated any reason for his deviation from his usual
driver and at the time when the bus was stopped, by its driver
point of time especially when his first glance of him was from
light from the car proceeding from the northern side and that
the car reached the spot only after two minutes of the incident
the court can only be, from the familiarity gained therefrom.
that the car reached the spot only after two minutes of the
creditworthiness of PW3.
the relevant time when he reached the spot after the incident.
to him, when he stopped the car, the bus was also stopped at
the spot of incident and the driver of the bus got down from
involved in his version that the car reached the spot after two
minutes of the incident and that the car was stopped only 15
metres away from the place where the bus was stopped. His
as untrustworthy witnesses.
for the offences under Section 297 and 304A IPC is declared
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE
vs
-true copy-
P.S.TO JUDGE