Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Kooli Saseendran and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (17 Dec 2019)

In a criminal case, remand is not to be ordered as a matter of course

MANU/SC/1757/2019

Criminal

Present appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the State, set aside the acquittal of the Appellants recorded by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. Accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The trial Court rightly held that, there were so many contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 that, no reliance could be placed on the same. In view of various contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution case and also the fact that, both PW-1 and PW-3 are political rivals of the Accused and are also alleged to have committed various offences on that very day prior to the occurrence in question and even earlier, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. The trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused.

The High Court set aside the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court in a casual manner. The evidence has not been discussed in detail and it is surprising to note that after discussing the entire case and observing that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court. The High Court also did not find material evidence to convict the Accused and, therefore, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the trial Court.

In a criminal case, remand is not to be ordered as a matter of course. It is only if there is a mis-trial or some technical issues have arisen that such an order may be made but in very rare circumstances. This should not have been done especially in the facts of the case. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and judgment of the trial court is restored. Appeals allowed.

Tags : CONVICTION   REMAND   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved