SREEJITH @ MANIKUTTAN v. STATE OF KERALA

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` SATURDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` OP(CRL.) NO. 820 OF 2023 ``` ``` SC 683/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :`** ``` SREEJITH @ MANIKUTTAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O SIVARAMAN NAIR, VATHALLOOR VEEDU, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514 BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR T.S.SARATH SAILAKSHMI MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP) ``` ``` THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the first accused in S.C.No.683 of 2022 pending before the Additional District & Sessions CourtIII, Alappuzha. The petitioner faces allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 326, 302 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was in inimical terms with the victim who is none other than his sister, assaulted her with a spade and inflicted injuries on her head due to which, she succumbed to the injuries on 30.11.2019. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court through this original petition seeking a direction to the Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara to postpone the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022 for the following reasons; (i) A new counsel has been appointed to appear for the petitioner/accused No.1 on 24.10.2023 and that counsel requires time to prepare for the trial of the case; O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 3 (ii) The counsel, who was newly appointed, realised after going through the records that there is a violation of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in as much as the copies of the prosecution documents contemplated by Section 207 Cr.P.C. have not been supplied to the accused in its entirety. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner faces trial for commission of serious offences and it would be a negation of the right of the petitioner to a fair and free trial, if the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022 is not adjourned on account of the aforesaid circumstances. The learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Mohd. Hussain Alias Zulfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi);**_ [(2012) 2 SCC 584], where it was held as follows; “23. The prompt disposition of criminal cases is to be commended and encouraged. But in reaching that result, the accused charged with a serious offence must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial. To do that, would be negation of concept of due process of law, regardless of the merits of the appeal. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to have the assistance of a counsel and the Criminal Procedure Code also requires the court in all criminal cases, where the accused is unable to engage counsel, to appoint a counsel for him at the expenses O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 4 of the State. Howsoever guilty of the appellant upon the inquiry might have been, he is until convicted, presumed to be innocent. It was the duty of the court, having these cases in charge, to see that he is denied no necessary incident of a fair trial.” It is submitted that every accused has a right to fair trial and this principle would be violated, if the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022 is not adjourned in the circumstances mentioned above. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the filing of this original petition is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner/first accused to somehow postpone the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022. It is submitted that the case was pending as C.P.No.18 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad from 26.03.2020 to 24.05.2022. It is submitted that there were about 45 postings in between the aforesaid two dates and some of these postings were for verification of the compliance of requirements under Section 207 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, after the Forensic Science Laboratory report was also received, the matter was committed to the Court of Session and summons was issued to the accused. It is submitted that the case was posted for framing of charges on O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 5 18.10.2023 and the trial of the case was scheduled. It is submitted that, on 18.10.2023, the counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner/accused, sought adjournment of the trial stating that he had some inconvenience, as he had already committed for the conduct of another trial in another Court. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge refused to adjourn the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022. 6. It is submitted that, on 24.10.2023, a new counsel was appointed for the petitioner/accused and again adjournment of trial was sought on the ground that there is a change of counsel. This was on 25.10.2023. The Sessions Court again refused postponement of the trial. It is submitted that, on 25.10.2023, both the accused were present and the chief examination of CW1 was completed as PW1. It is submitted that Exts.P1, P2 and material objects 1 to 7 were marked and PW1 was bound over for cross and CW2 was also bound over to 28.10.2023. 7. It is submitted that, on 25.10.2023, this original petition has been filed seeking adjournment of trial on grounds already noticed above. It is submitted that the main reason as to why the adjournment of trial cannot be permitted is that on O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 6 25.10.2023, Crime No.912 of 2023 has been registered against the wife and a relative of the petitioner/accused No.1 alleging that they had attempted to win over CW2. It is submitted that the allegations in the First Information Statement leading to registration of Crime No.912 of 2023 on the complaint of CW2 is as follows; "ചെ റുതന വില്ലേജിൽ ആയാപറമ മുറിയിൽ ചെ റുതന പഞ്ചായത 9-ാം വാർഡിൽ പുന്നൂർ തെ ക്കതിൽവീട്ടിൽ ചെല്ലപ്പൻ മകൻഅനിയൻവയസ 48/23, 25/10/2023 തീയതി രാത്രി 09.00 മണിക ഹരിപ്പാട്പ ോലീസ്സ്്േഷനിൽഹാജരായിപ ോലീസ് സബ ഇൻസ്പെക്ടർ ഷൈ ജാ.ഇ.എസ്സിനനോട് പറയുന്ന മൊഴി ( 9074850842) എന്നെഇന്നലെ (24/10/2023 തീയതി) ഗിരിജാ കൊലക്കേസ്സിലെ പ്രതിയായ ശ്രീജിത്തിന്റെ ഭാര്യ ബീനയും മരുമകൻ ജിത്തുവും കൂടി എന്റെവീട്ടിൽവനനകേസ്സിലെ സാക്ഷിയായ എന്നെ പ്രലോഭിക്കുവാനും നടക്കാതെ വന്നപ്പ്പ ോൾ ഭീഷണിപ്പടുത്തുകയും ചെയ്ത വിവരം പറയാൻ വന്നതാണ്. എനികക കൂലിപ്പണിയാണ്, വീട്ടിൽ ഞാനും ഭാര്യ സനധയും മക്കളുമമൊത്താണ് താമസിക്കുന്നത്. 06.10.2009-ൽ നടന്ന ഗിരിജാ ക കൊലപാതകക്കേ സിൽ ഞാൻ രണ്ടാം . സാക്ഷിയാണ് ഈ അടുത്ത ദിവസമാണ് കേസിന്റെ വിസ്താരം തുടങ്ങാൻ ഇരിക്കുന്നത്. ഇന്നലെ 24.10.2023 ഞാൻ പണിക്കുപ പോയി തിരികെ വൈകിടട 7 മാണിയയോട് കൂടി വീട്ടിൽ വന പ്പോൾ . എന്റെ വീട്ടിൽ രണ്ടു പേർ വന്നിരിക്കുന്നത് കണ്ടു അത് ഗിരിജക കൊലക്കേ സിലെ പ്രതിയായ ശ്രീജിത്തിന്റെ ഭാര്യ ബീനയും O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 7 . മരുമകൻ ജിത്തുവും ആയിരുന്നു എന്തിനാണ് വന്നു എനന ഞാൻ ചോദിച പ്പോൾ അവർ എ്ന്നോട് എന്റെ ഭർത്താവിനെ എങ്ങനെയെ ങ്കിലും ഈ കേസിൽ നിന്നും രക്ഷിക്കണമെന്നും , അവർക്കു അനുകൂലമായി മ മൊഴി പറയണമെന്നും പൈസ തരാമെന്നും അതിനു വേണ്ടി എന്തും തരാൻ ഞങ്ങൾ ന . സന്നദ്ധമാണെ ന ഇരുവരും പറഞ്ഞു എന്റെ ഭർത്താവിന്റെ അളിയനായ ഹരി ഈ കേസിൽ ഞങ്ങൾക്കും അനുകൂലമായി സംസാരിക്കുമെന്നും പിന്നെ നിങ്ങൾകക എന്താണ് ഈ കേസിൽ . താത്പര്യമെനന ചോദിച്ചു ബീന ചോദിച്ചു ഒത്തിരി തവണ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടും ഞാൻ വഴങ്ങാത് ിനാൽ പിന്നീട് അവർ ഭീഷണിയുടെ സ്വരത്തിൽ സംസാരിക്ുയും നിന്നെ നാട്ടിൽമ മോശക്കാരനായി ചിത്രീകരിക്കുമെന്നും മരിച്ചുപപോയ ഗിരിജ ടീച്ചറെ വെചച അപവാദം പറയുമെനന ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുകയും നിന്നെ പുറംലോകം കാണിക്കില്ലായെ ന്നു പറഞ്ഞു വീട്ടിൽ നിന്നും . 9048002558 ഇറങ്ങി്പ്പോയി പിന്നീട് രാത്രിയായ്പ്പോൾ എന്ന നമ്പറിൽ നിന്നും വിളിക്ുയും പേടി കാരണം ഞാൻ ഫ ോൺ . എടുത്തില്ല കഴിഞ്ഞ ദിവസം ഈ കേസിലെ ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷിയും എന്റെ സുഹൃത്തുമായ മുഹമ്മദിനേയും ഇങ്ങനെ . ഞാൻ ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതായി അവൻ പറഞ്ഞു ഞാൻ അറിഞ്ഞു കേസിൽ നിന്നും മ മൊഴി മാറ്റി പറയാൻ വേണ്ടിയാണു ് . ഇങ്ങനെയ യൊക്കെ അവർ ചെയ് സംഭവം ഹരിപ്പാട് പപോലീസ് സ് ഷനിൽ നിന്നും 4 കിലോമീറ്റർ ദൂരം വരും വടക്കു മാറിയാണ്.” It is submitted that the prosecution has, therefore, clear reasons to believe that the attempt of the petitioner/first accused is to get the trial postponed on one pretext of the other so as to win over the prosecution witnesses either by offering inducement or under threat. It is submitted that this is clear from the First O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 8 Information Statement leading to registration of Crime No.912 of 2023. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner/first accused is completely unaware of the circumstances leading to registration of Crime 912 of 2023. It is submitted that there are chances that the relatives of the petitioner had purposefully attempted to get a case of the nature of Crime No.912 of 2023 registered so as to prejudice the petitioner, as the allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered his own sister. It is submitted that even if the allegations are true, the same is presently only an accusation and there is no material presently to suggest that those accusations are true. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The contention taken that there is no proper compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., cannot be accepted at this stage. It is for the first time through Ext.P7 application filed on 24.10.2023 that a contention has been taken that there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The said contention cannot O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 9 be accepted as from 26.03.2020 till 24.05.2022 there were nearly 45 postings before the Committal Court. At the committal stage, there was verification regarding the compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed only after 24.05.2022. Even after the case was committed and charges were framed on 18.10.2023 by the Sessions Court, (almost 1 ½ years after committal), no sort of complaint has been raised that there was no compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am not convinced that the petitioner has made out a case for postponement of the trial S.C.No.683 of 2022 on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 10. Coming to the other contention raised in support of the prayer for postponement of trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022, it is seen that the adjournment is sought on the ground that a new counsel had been appointed to conduct the trial for the petitioner/first accused on 24.10.2023. The request has to be considered in the background of the circumstances leading to registration of Crime No.912 of 2023 of Haripad Police Station on the complaint of CW2. As already noticed, the First Information Statement of CW2 clearly indicates that the wife O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 10 and a relative of the petitioner/first accused had approached him offering inducement to change his version in favour of the accused. When that failed, according to CW2, he was threatened. It is clear from the First Information Statement of CW2 that CW1 had also faced a similar experience. The proceedings of the Sessions Court on 25.10.2023 indicates that the trial has already commenced and if at this stage, the trial is adjourned, there is every chance that the witnesses will be attempted to be won over either by offering inducement or under threat. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the allegations in the First Information Statement that led to registration of Crime No.912 of 2023 are only accusations at present, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, is not possible for this Court to ignore completely the contents of the First Information Statement given by CW2. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Mohd. Hussain** ’s case_ (supra) also does not compel me to hold that the petitioner is entitled to adjournment of the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022. It is well settled that the accused has a O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 11 right to a fair trial. The same cannot be at the cost of prosecution witnesses being attempted to be won over by offering inducement or under threat. The facts of this case clearly show that according to CW2, he was attempted to be won over by offering inducement and when that was refused, he was threatened. According to CW2, who gave the First Information Statement leading to registration of Crime No.912 of 2023, similar inducement was also offered to CW1, who did not however file any complaint before the Police.Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The original petition will stand dismissed. However, in order to give the shortest possible time to the counsel to prepare for the trial, I direct that the trial of S.C.No.683 of 2022 shall be adjourned till 30.10.2023. Sd/- ## **GOPINATH P., JUDGE** rkj O.P.(Crl)No.820 of 2023 12 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 820/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1597/2019 Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE HARIPAD POLICE Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-III, MAVELIKKARA OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS WEBSITE Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON 16.10.2023 OBTAINED FROM THE E-COURTS WEBSITE Exhibit P5THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER DATED 21.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE COUNSELS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER DATED 21.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE COUNSELS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.10.2023 ```