Reform in Growth of Accused, a Positive Factor in Withdrawal of Prosecution: Kerala High Court

The 4 accused allegedly entered the Treasury Office Kattakada campus without permission and broke the window glass of the Treasury building, causing a loss of Rs. 250. They are alleged to have committed an offense under IPC Section 447 (criminal trespass) r/w Section 34 (common intention) and Prevention of Damage Section 3(2)(c) (mischief causing damage to public property). Public Property Law.

When the Magistrate Court published the case for framing of charges, the Deputy Public Prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 of Cr.PC. The Criminal Judge of Peace rejected the application on the grounds that the Deputy Public Prosecutor submitted the petition only in compliance with the government decision and did not implement his opinion. The State appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

The State had argued before the Supreme Court that the accused, who was a student at the time, was protesting the death of another student who committed suicide because he was denied a bank loan for higher education. This march was blocked by local people. A brawl broke out. Some threw stones at the building, damaging the window panes.

The Public Prosecutor claimed that there was no evidence showing that the defendant committed the crime. He also stated that it was doubtful whether the defendant had this license. male real commit the crime. The State argued that the accused only intended to sit on a dharna. The incident got out of hand with the intervention of the surrounding people. The State also argued that the defendant had no criminal history. They protested for a genuine cause. Further, the State said that the loss incurred was Rs. Only 250.

The incident took place in 2004. The prosecutor stated that the defendants’ training was over. Many of them are political and social leaders, while some are engaged in social services.

The court accepted the arguments made by the State. He observed:

“The trivial nature of the crime, the lack of mensrea of ​​the accused in the commission of the crime and the reformed growth of the accused, transforming himself into a dedicated social worker, are some of the positive factors that the Court may take into account while making this decision. “I consented to the withdrawal of the prosecution.”

The court concluded that most of the defendants were rehabilitated because they were currently engaged in social services. The court observed that withdrawing the case would be in the interest of society, society or the public as a whole.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. 437 of 2009

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sreenath and Others

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698