2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 CRIME NO.69/2014 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.104 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE PETITIONERS: 1 NOUFAL B.B AGED 30 YEARS S/O ABDULLA BASHEER, NOORIA MANZIL, NEAR KAYARKATTA SCHOOL, PAIVALLIGE VILLAGE, PAINVALLIGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH XI-156., PIN - 671348 2 MUHAMMED SADATH ALI AGED 34 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, AMBIKKANA HOUSE, PAIVALLIGE PO, UPPALA, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671348 BY ADV K.V.SABU RESPONDENTS: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY PP M.C.ASHI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 2 ORDER Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 Petitioners are accused Nos. 15 and 16 in Crime No.69 of 2014 of Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act. The crime was registered on the allegation that, at about 21:00 hrs on 25.01.2014, the accused, due to their enmity towards Baliga Azeez for protecting the persons who had stabbed the brother of the 1st accused, formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of Baliga Azeez. Upon filing of final report and committal, the case was numbered as S.C.No.460 of 2014 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod. Out the 16 accused, all except A2, A8, A10, A15 and A16, faced trial and were acquitted as per Annexure A4 judgment. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 3 is filed, seeking to get the proceedings against the petitioners quashed on the strength of the judgment of acquittal rendered in the case of their co-accused. 2. Adv. K.V. Sabu, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the light of the categoric findings in Annexure A4 judgment, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners, as there is no possibility of such proceedings ending in conviction. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the findings in paragraphs 28, 30, 31 and 32 of Annexure A4. It is submitted that, after careful analysis of the prosecution evidence, the trial court had reached the definite conclusion that there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 3. Adv. M.C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in other crimes and are not entitled to get the proceedings quashed based on the judgment rendered in the case of the accused who had faced trial. 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 4 4. The question arising for consideration being whether the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed in view of the acquittal of their co-accused, the contextually relevant portion of Annexure A4 judgment is extracted below for easy reference; “There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Then the question is, whether there is any circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime. It is settled that in a case depends on circumstantial evidence, the court must be firmly satisfied that I) The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt, II) The circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and III) That the circumstances taken collectively are incapable of any reasonable hypothesis same that of the guilt proved against them. Even if on MO1 bottle, the finger impression of 9th accused, it would not unmistakably lead to the 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 5 conclusion that 9th accused along with the other accused committed the murder of Balige Azeez unless it is proved before the court that fatal injury to the deceased was caused by the accused. This solitary piece of evidence of PW34 is too shaky, suspicious and fragile to furnish a sound foundation to the case of the prosecution. So there are no circumstances to connect any of the accused persons with the crime. The prosecution also failed to prove the common object in the sense of a prearranged plan between the accused persons to kill Balige Azeez. The condition precedent which are requisite to be satisfied to attract Section 149 of the IPC is that there must be an unlawful assembly and that the offence must have been done by any member of an unlawful assembly and such offence has been committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. There is no evidence regarding the unlawful assembly by the accused person with a common object. There is no evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove that in prosecution of the common object, the accused persons used force and violence 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 6 and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons in pursuance of the unlawful assembly. This evidence is also lacking in the case. Unless these facts are present, Section 149 of the IPC will not apply. So the prosecution failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused U/s.143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence before the court to prove that the accused acquired, possessed or carried any arms in connection with the crime. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the offence U/s. 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.” 5. Having carefully scrutinised the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, I am in complete agreement with the above findings. As observed by the trial court, no independent witness had supported the prosecution case and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to connect the accused with the crime. The prosecution also failed to prove common object among the accused and formation of an unlawful assembly for achieving the common object. By the above findings, the substratum of the prosecution case is lost. Being so, continuation of the criminal proceedings 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 7 against the petitioners will be a futile exercise and wastage of valuable judicial time. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure A3 final report in Crime No.69 of 2014 of Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod and all further proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, as against the petitioners, is quashed. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE SPV 2025:KER:25020 CRL.MC NO. 2591 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2591/2025 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A COPY OF THE FIR BEARING NO.69/14 REGISTERED BY MANJESWAR POLICE STATION DT.25.1.2014 ANNEXURE A2 A COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT DT.25.1.2014 GIVEN BY MR.SAJID, S/O ABBAS ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE DT.24.4.2014 IN CRIME NO.69/2014 REGISTERED BY MANJESWAR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.30.9.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KASARAGOD IN SC NO.460/2014 ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW 1 TO 38 IN SC NO.460/14 OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A6 A COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.1.2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO.6089/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE