Kerala High Court
Basheer K.V vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 1
2026:KER:32207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 1222 OF 2021
CRIME NO.52/2013 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2019 IN SC
NO.542/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
BASHEER K.V
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, KANNAPPURATH VALAPPIL,
THALAKKASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRITHALA POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679534.
BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU (KADAKKAL)
SMT.MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 2
2026:KER:32207
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure- 1
FIR and Annexure -2 Final Report in Crime No. 52 of 2013 of
Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad, wherein he has been arraigned
as accused No.1, charged with commission of the offences
punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324 and 308 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case is that on 15.01.2013 around
06:15 P.M. while CW1 was sitting in Uduppi Hotel at Padinjarangadi
in Pattithara Panchayat along with his two friends, the accused
persons, having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with
the common object of causing bodily injury to CW1 and with the
intention to cause his death, committed criminal trespass into the
hotel, and in prosecution of the said common object the 1st accused
assaulted CW1 with an iron pipe, which act was so imminently
dangerous that it would, in all probability, have caused the death of
CW1, thereby constituting an attempt to commit culpable homicide
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 3
2026:KER:32207
not amounting to murder, and the accused Nos.2, 3 and 7, in
furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, also
voluntarily caused injuries on various parts of the body of CW1,
thereby committing the aforesaid offences.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the above crime, the 2nd
respondent completed the investigation and laid the final report
before the jurisdictional court, upon which the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Pattambi, took cognizance of the offences as C.P.
No.14 of 2015 and issued summons to all the accused, including the
petitioner. On service of summons, the petitioner and the other
accused entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and
took part in the committal proceedings. Subsequently, the learned
Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 209 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Court of Session,
Palakkad, except in respect of the 7th accused, and the matter was
thereafter assigned to the Additional Sessions Court, Ottapalam, for
trial and disposal. At the said stage, owing to the petitioner’s
employment-related travel to different places, he was unable to be
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 4
2026:KER:32207
present before the Sessions Court, as a result of which the case
against the petitioner was split up, and the learned Sessions Judge
proceeded with the trial against the remaining accused. Trial in the
said proceedings which was numbered as SC No.542 of 2015
ended in acquittal of all other accused in the crime. As the petitioner
was absent and his case had been split up his case was moved to
the Long Pending Register.
4. Petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. contending inter alia
that in view of the acquittal of all other accused, no meaningful legal
purpose would be served by continuing the trial against him in the
same crime on the same evidence, and the proceedings against him
are fit to be quashed, invoking the extraordinary powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Heard.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all
the accused in S.C.No. 542 of 2015 had been acquitted by the
Additional Sessions Court, Ottapalam, finding that PW1 has no
consistent case regarding the occurrence and identity of the
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 5
2026:KER:32207
accused. None of the accused were identified by PW1 in the dock.
The statement of PW1 is inconsistent in material particulars and
cannot be believed without corroborative evidence. It is further
submitted that Exhibit P7 is also not in consistent with the case of
PW1. Mos. 1 and 2 were not seized from the place of occurrence as
per Exhibit P3 to link the weapon as used by the Accused and left
there. It was also directed to destroy MO1 series and MO3 being
value less, confiscate, break open and auction MO2 after appeal
period by Judgment dated 18.01.2019 in SC No. 542 of 2015.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the mere
acquittal of the co-accused would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner
to claim similar relief, as the petitioner had not subjected himself to
the trial process. It was further contended that the overt act
attributed by accused No.1/petitioner is distinct and specific,
inasmuch as the petitioner, in furtherance of the common object of
the unlawful assembly, assaulted CW1 with an iron pipe, aiming a
blow at his head, which was averted when CW1 turned aside. It was
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 6
2026:KER:32207
submitted that had the blow landed on the head, it would have
resulted in the death of CW1, thereby constituting an attempt to
commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The learned
Public prosecutor thus prays that the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
8. I have heard both sides in detail and considered the
contentions put forth. It is noted that the Additional Sessions Judge,
while acquitting all other accused in the crime, had in Annexure A3
judgment concluded that the prosecution had not succeeded in
establishing and proving the offences charged against the accused.
The ingredients to constitute the offences alleged had not been
made out or established, and it was found that the prosecution’s
evidence on record does not establish or prove the charge levelled
against the accused.
9. It is noted that all the other accused persons, who stood
on the same footing as the petitioner, have already been acquitted
by the trial court. It is noted that the very same set of facts,
allegations, and evidentiary circumstances that led to the acquittal of
the other accused persons equally apply to the petitioner/accused
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 7
2026:KER:32207
No.1. It is trite that when there is similar or identical evidence of
eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or
similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the
other. [See Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat [(2023)
9 SCC 164]; Yogarani v. State by the Inspector of Police (2024
SCC OnLine SC 2609)].
10. I note that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the allegations against the petitioner are inseparable from those in
respect of co accused who have been acquitted. When all other
accused in the crime stand acquitted after trial, and when similar or
identical evidence exists against the petitioner who is also accused
in the same crime, the petitioner is entitled to seek quashing of the
proceedings against him on the premise that even if he is made to
face the trial, the result would not be different. Requiring the
petitioner to face trial solely on the ground that he went out in sought
of employment after the committal proceedings, as well as at this
stage where all the MOs had been disposed off and the case was
effectively closed, would be a futile exercise.
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 8
2026:KER:32207
In the above, I deem this to be a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as sought by the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure
2 Final Report in Crime No.52 of 2013 of Thrithala Police Station,
Palakkad as against the petitioner/ accused No. 1 is quashed.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
CRL.M.C.NO.1222/2021 9
2026:KER:32207
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1222 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.52/2013 OF THRITHALA POLICE
STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.52/2013 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.1.2019 IN
S.C.NO.542/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, OTTAPALAM.