High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-12-18Acquitted, bail bonds discharged

Easwaran, S/o Kailasam Puthussery, Eduppukulam v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2696 of 2008; Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 522 of 2008; Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4469 of 2007; Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4624 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2018-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petitions are allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; the revision petitioners acquitted; bail bonds discharged.
Final Disposition: Acquitted, bail bonds discharged

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Easwaran, S/o Kailasam Puthussery Village, Eduppukulam
Rajesh, S/o Pazhanan, Chadayankalayi, Pudussery
Babu S/o Manikan, Pudussery East Village, Chadayanakalayi
Sivakumar S/o Murugan, Padinjarakkad, Chullimada
Kannan S/o Achanakkutty, Padinjarakkad, Chullimada
Vincent S/o Kanakaraj, Muthukaruppan Veedu, Padinjarakkad, Chullimada
Shamsudheen, S/o Ummer, Chandayankalayi, Pudussery
Sasi, S/o Chellan, Gandhi Nagar, Koyyarnarkad, Palakkad
Ravi @ Ravindran, S/o Velayudhan C.V.R. Nilayam, Behind K.T.C., Kanjikode, Palakkad
Karthikeyan S/o Haridas Chandayankalayi, Kanjikode, Palakkad

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Sojan Micheal
• Smt. Jency Micheal
• Sri K. Abdul Jawad
• Sri U. Muhammed Musthafa

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri E. C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

These four Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2696/2008; 522/2008; 4469/2007; 4624/2007) were heard together by the Kerala High Court on 18 December 2018 before Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar. The petitions challenge the convictions under Sections 143 and 147 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act arising from a bandh on 1 March 2002 at Chadayankalayi, Palakkad, where a mob allegedly set fire to old tyres on a public road causing minor damage estimated at Rs 2000. The trial court relied on the testimonies of PW1 (Sub-Inspector of Kasaba Police) and PW5, with PW2 and PW5 corroborating, while no independent witnesses were examined. The court notes a lack of independent investigation because the investigation was conducted by PW5 under the instruction of PW1, who detected the offence, and PW5 is PW1’s subordinate. Citing Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (SC), the court holds that a fair investigation is indispensable for a fair trial and that justice must appear to be done. The judge concludes that the prosecution’s investigation was not fair, and as a result the convictions cannot stand. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners acquitted; bail bonds are discharged.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 3(1) of Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Fair investigation doctrine (informant and investigator must not be the same person)
Justice must be done and must appear to be done
Fairness of investigation is foundational to a fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners challenge their convictions by relying on the complaint that the investigation was conducted by PW5 under the supervision of PW1, who also detected the offence. They highlight the absence of independent witnesses and contend that there was no fair and impartial investigation, which undermined the fairness of the trial. They rely on the principle that a fair investigation is essential to a fair trial and seek acquittal on these grounds, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable and impartial investigation chain.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution contends that the evidence led before the trial court—including the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW5—sufficiently established the offence and warranted conviction. They maintain that the presence and actions of the investigating officers at the scene do not necessarily vitiate the investigation and that the conviction should stand in light of the evidence adduced.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab	2018 (2) KLD 394 (SC)	Positive	The Supreme Court in Mohan Lal held that a fair investigation is foundational to a fair trial and that informant and investigator must not be the same person; the Kerala High Court applies this principle to conclude the present investigation was not fair.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Easwaran, S/o Kailasam Puthussery, Eduppukulam v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2696 of 2008** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 525/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD DATED 30-11-2007** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 288/2002 of J.M.F.C.I,PALAKKAD DATED 29-11-2003** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **EASWARAN, S/O. KAILASAM PUTHUSSERY VILLAGE, EDUPPUKULAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SMT.JENCY MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.E.C. BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007, Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 522 of 2008** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 525/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD DATED 30-11-2007 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 288/2002 of J.M.F.C.-I,PALAKKAD DATED 29-11-2003** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**RAJESH, S/O. PAZHANAN,**| |---|---| ||**CHADAYANKALAYI, PUDUSSERY.**| |**2**|**BABU S/O. MANIKAN**| ||**PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, CHADAYANKALAYI.**| |**3**|**BIJU S/O. CHANDRAN**| ||**THAMARAKULAM, KOYAMARAKAD.**| |**4**|**SIVAKUMAR S/O. MURUGAN**| ||**PADINJAREKAD, CHULLIMADA.**| |**5**|**KANNAN S/O. ACHANAKUTTY**| ||**PADINJAREKAD, CHULLIMADA.**| |**6**|**VINCENT S/O. KANAKARAJ**| ||**MUTHUKARUPPAN VEEDU, PADINJAREKAD, CHULLIMADA.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL**| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|| ||**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,**| ||**ERNAKULAM.**| ||**PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH**| **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2696/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007, Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -3- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4469 of 2007** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 525/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD DATED 30-11-2007 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 288/2002 of J.M.F.C.I,PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. UMMER, CHANDAYANKALAYI, PUDUSSERY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION,, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2696/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -4- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4624 of 2007** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 537/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD DATED 30-11-2007** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 288/2002 of J.M.F.C.I,PALAKKAD DATED 29-11-2003** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **1 SASI, S/O. CHELLAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOYYARNARAKKAD, PALAKKAD.** **2 RAVI @ RAVINDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN C.V.R. NILAYAM, BEHIND K.T.C.,, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. 3 KARTHIKEYAN S/O.HARIDAS CHADAYANKALAYI, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI E C BINEESH-PP** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2696/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008, Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -5- ## **ORDER** **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** The revision petitioners were the accused in C.C. No. 288 of 2002 on the files of the court below. The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act. 2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows: On 1-3-2002, there was a bhandh on the exhortation of a political party. On that day, at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioners in prosecution of their common object to commit destruction to the public property, unlawfully assembled at Chadayankalayi and set fire the old tyres of vehicles, which were collected from the side of the road and as a consequence, a ditch was developed due to the **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -6- melting of the tar and thereby, the Government sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. 3. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. ## 4. Heard. 5. In this case, PW1 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, who detected the offence during the course of patrol duty. PW1 stated that on 1-3-2002 at 8.30 a.m., he found the revision petitioners committing the offence. PW2 was a police constable, who was also present along with PW1 at the relevant time. He supported the evidence of PW1. PW5 was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who also accompanied PW1 and party at the relevant time. He also supported the **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -7- evidence of PW1 in all material aspects. However, no independent witness was examined in this case to prove the occurrence eventhough the incident in this case was on the public road in the day light. 6. The incident in this case was at 8.30 a.m. on 1-3-2002. The investigation in this case was conducted by PW5 as instructed by PW1. After completing the investigation, PW5 filed the final report before the Court. It is true that PW1 was the detecting officer. However, PW5 was also present along with PW1 at the time of detecting the offence. PW5 was admittedly the subordinate officer of PW1. It is clear from the evidence of PW5 that PW5 conducted the investigation as directed by PW1. The evidence in this case would show that PW5 was one of the officers who detected the offence along with PW1. In view of the above reasons, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [2018 (2) KLD 394 (SC) ] is squarely applicable to **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -8- the case on hand. 7. In Mohanlal (Supra), it was held that a fair investigation, which is the very foundation of a fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. It was further held by the Apex Court in Mohanlal (Supra) that justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. 8. In this case, the offence was detected by PW5 and PW1 together. The investigation was conducted by PW5 as directed by PW1. Admittedly, PW5 was the subordinate officer of PW1. After completing the investigation, PW5 filed the final report before the Court. In view of the above reason, it cannot be said that there was fair investigation. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was fair trial. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. **[ Crl.Rev.Pet 2696/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2008 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4469/2007 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.4624/2007 ]** -9- In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence and the revision petitioners stand acquitted. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand discharged. Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2018. **Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** . ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge