. The prosecution case unfolded during the course of the trial, in brief are that on 24.07.2016 the Station House officer of Alappuzha South Police Station, Mr. Rohith M. Subramoniam registered an F.I.R. with respect to commission of the offence that took place near Iron bridge road, Alappuzha. The witness Mr. Ram Jeth from here, PW. 1 who works at a bank as a clerk saw the accused approaching the victim Mr. Abul Samer, a head constables jeep in a red Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing registration number KL-04-CC-1515 (Ex. No. 3). Further, the accused forcefully evicted the victim out of the jeep from the driver seat and the windshield was shattered using a lathi. Then, the victim was given a blow in the head which left him bleeding. The PW 1, took him to the Alappuzha General Hospital. On the basis of this information, a G.D. entry bearing No. 13 dated 24.07.2016 was made at the Alappuzha South P.S. After the F.I.R. the police started the investigation. The officer in charge hereon, PW. 2 proceeded to the spot immediately and then directly to the General Hospital where the victim was taken. 

3. Later, per the request of the PW. 2 and the S.I. of the P.S., a medical examination of the victim was performed and it was concluded that there was an incision of 2.3 inches length which extended from the forehead to the scalp and the wound was termed as grievous in the examination report. On 25.07.2016 a notice was issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for calling the statement of witness ( Ex. No. 1) On 26.07.2016 the officer in charge recorded the witness statement of PW. 1 u/s 161 C.r.P.C. On 27.07.16 a search warrant was issued by the court for the two wheeler bearing number KL-04-CC-1515 which was used by the accused in pursuit of the offence committed. At 7.45 P.M. on 27.07.16 a red Royal Enfield bike bearing registration number KL-04-CC-1515 (Ex. No. 3) was recovered from the residential premises of the accused, the same was seized and was further taken to the South P.S. The victims jeep, a Police Jeep bearing registration number KL-01-AA-4475 was recovered and taken form the scene of the crime. The seized vehicles were produced before the magistrate. 

4. On 28.07.2016 the accused was arrested and produced before the magistrate for taking cognisance of the crime. At 11:10 A.M. the same day, the statement of the accused (Ex. No. 2)  was recorded u/s. 161 C.r.P.C. Later, a notice of arrest u/s. 50 A C.r.P.C. was issued and the requisites were complied with. Simultaneously the accused was examined by registered medical practitioner. At 3:30 P.M. on the same day, the accused was produced before the magistrate and was released on a bail bond on Rs. 30,000/-. On 30.07.2016, after the completion of the investigation a Charge-sheet was laid for trial of the accused u/s. 332/333/302 IPC. Since, the offence u/s. 333/307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to this court. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


5. The accused engaged Adv. V. Deepak as the Defence Counsel to defend the accused. After hearing both the counsels for the parties, charges u/s. 332/333/307 I.P.C. were framed and made out against the accused. When the charges so framed were read over and explained to the accused, he denied commuting the offence. Since the accused denied the charges, trial was claimed. 


6.  In support of its claims in the case, prosecution examined 3 witnesses in all. A short list of resume and details of the witness are herein necessary for the recording to be understood: 

7. PW. 1 is Mr. Ram Jeth @ Ram. He was a witness to the crime at the scene during its occurrence. The person is a bank clerk working in the adjoining building to the road, where the offence was committed. When PW. 1 was crossing the road on 24.07.2016, he saw a red Royal Enfield bike bearing registration no.  KL-04-CC-1515 (Ex. No. 3) approaching the road near the iron bridge. Soon, the bike was stopped in front of police jeep that was approaching from the by-road, the accused then got down form the bike and forcefully evicted the victim from the driver seat of the car. Next, the accused took a lathi and smashed it on the windscreen of the jeep, cracking and shattering the windscreen glass of the jeep. Then the accused gave a severe blow to the head of the victim, which left the victim bleeding severely. PW. 1 immediately took the victim to the nearby General Hospital’s casualty department. After this, PW. 1 went to the Alappuzha South P.S. and lodged an F.I.R. Later, on 26.07.2016 the Statement of Witness (Ex. No. 1) was recorded u/s. 161 C.r.P.C. He has corroborated with the statements, already given.

8.  PW. 2 is Mr. Rohith M. Subramoniam @ Rohith. He was the officer-in-charge of the Alappuzha South P.S. during the period of the offence committed. On 24.07.2016, PW. 1 approached the P.S. and an F.I.R. was registered by the PW. 2. Further on the same day PW. 2 proceeded to the crime scene and recovered the police jeep bearing registration no. KL-01-AA-4475. PW. 2 immediately approached the General Hospital and recorded the Statement of the accused (Ex. No. 2). Further, he produced the vehicle to the Magistrate. On 27.07.16, PW. 2 in lieu of a search warrant, searched and seized the bike bearing registration no. KL-04-CC-1515. Later, on 28.07.16 the accused was arrested in the presence of PW. 2. 

9. PW. 3 is Dr. Anil Nair @ Ani. He is a registered medical practitioner at the Alappzuha General Hospital. On 24.07.2016, on the application of the S.I. of Police of the Alappuzha South P.S., PW. 3 performed a medical examination of the wound on the victim and certified its dimensions, impact and other details in the Medical Examination of Wounded Person. The incision which extended from the forehead to the scalp was assessed to be 2.3 Inches in length. The wound was termed as grievous and five stitches were administered to the wound for it to heal. 


10. Accused person in his Statement recorded u/s. 164 C.r.P.C. has completely denied the prosecution evidence which is put forth. Though they have no evidence to lead in defence, the statement given by the accused completely denies and rather brings forth a different dimension. 

11. On 24-07-2016 the accused was going to buy vegetables for his house and on the way, a police jeep speeded and stopped fast infant of me in a very rude and threatening way. Like any other common man, the accused parked the bike right there and demanded the jeep driver to drive slowly and apologise. But, instead of this the driver suddenly pushed the accused away with his hand through the jeep’s window and got down of the jeep and held the accused by his collar, after which the accused pushed him by his shoulder so as to free himself from the victims hold. But, as the accused  pushed he again jumped towards and accidentally hit his head on the jeep’s window pane and broke his head. The accused has also stated that he is completely innocent and has been falsely arrested in the case. Further, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the accused.Accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence. 
12. The learned public prosector kept reliance on the corroborated statement of PW. 1 ( Ex. No. 1), which clearly shows that the accused initially obstructed the jeep with his Red Royal Enfield two wheeler (Ex. No. 3). The point os dispute was raised to the fact that whether the accused gave a wilful sever below or was it an accident by hitting the head on the window pane. But, the jeep bearing registration No. KL.01.AA.4475 (Ex. No. 4) had its wind screen shattered with the lathi. This establishes an attack on the jeep and shows the wilful involvement of the accused in the crime. In the cross-examination of PW. 1, it is evident that PW. 1 was a eye witness to the crime. the presence of PW.1 at the place of occurrence of crime is substantiated by PW. 3, who has noticed him at the General Hospital. This clearly brings forth and establishes the point for determination on whether the accused has voluntarily cause grievous hurt. There was active destruction to public property, as the jeep bearing registration No. KL.01.AA.4475 (Ex. No. 4) was a police jeep. In M. T. Hemchandran. v. S.I. of Police Chevayur P.S. & Ord. (24.10.2011 – KERHC) : MANU/KE/1893/2011 the Kerala High Court laid that
 “Destruction or attack on public property or vehicle is to be taken very seriously. It cannot be destroyed by anybody or anyone, whatever may be the reason. There can be no or any  justification for the destruction of a public property, whatever may be the cause”. 
Such is the value attributed to a public property, in the instant case the attack was on a police jeep which was on it law and order duty.
13. The jeep bearing registration No. KL.01.AA.4475 (Ex. No. 4) was recovered within a few hours after the crime was committed. The Ld. public prosecutor kept reliance on the  Medical examination report issues by the PW. 3 clearly explains the presence of a sharp object which is attributed to the accused act. This was deposed by PW. 3. 
14.  The other fact that the learned public prosecutor would bring forth is that the Red Royal Enfield two wheeler (Ex. No. 3) which was actively involved in the crime was recovered from residence of the accused on 27.07.2016. The Search and Seizure report prepared in the presence of Witness No.1 Mr. Rahim Ahmed and Witness No. 2 Mr. Sumesh Kumar brings forth an undisputed and settled point of the two wheeler being under the strict control of the accused himself.
15.  The defence counsel brings

Categories: Articles


I'm Garrett!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out