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

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 19th December 2019

It is only if there is a mistrial or some technical issues have arisen that such an order may be made but in very rare circumstances.

KOOLI SASEENDHARAN & ORS vs STATE OF KERALA., Criminal Appeal NO(S).1874-1875 of 2010.

Facts of the case:

• On 12.10.1999 at about 8.30 a.m. 14 accused persons and 10­-20 others formed an unlawful assembly. These persons were armed with deadly weapons like country made bombs etc. They hurled bombs at Parayil Sasi. One of the bombs exploded and said Parayil Sasi received grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
• Report in this regard was lodged by Kollam Kunnummal Achuthan (PW­1) in which he stated that at about 8.30 a.m. On 12.10.1999 he was sipping tea at the tea shop run by Rajeevan (not examined) at Ayithara. He heard the sound of a loud explosion of bomb from the side of L.P. School ground. He got down from the tea shop and stood on the ground.
•  At that time, he saw the 14 accused (named) and about 10-­20 other accused (un­ named) running and rushing towards Parayil Sasi and 3 of his associates who were walking through the paddy field on the raised boundary of the same.
• Kooli Saseendran (Accused 1) said ‘kill him’ and hurled bomb at Parayil Sasi. This bomb hit the face and body of Parayil Sasi, who fell down on the bund of the canal. The other persons with Parayil Sasi turned back and ran away. According to this witness, in addition to bombs, the accused were armed with choppers, spades etc.
• Immediately after the occurrence they went away. The reason for the attack was that Parayil Sasi was an RSS activist whereas those who hurled bombs at Parayil Sasi and killed him were all CPM workers. The motive of the crime was stated to be political animosity.
• First information report (FIR) in this behalf was registered at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter investigation was carried out by the police and the accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
• The case was committed to the Court of Sessions The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As the procedure of the trial the witnesses were cross examined. In cross examination,  Kollam Kunnummal Achuthan (PW­1)
• admits that he is an accused in the case relating to destruction of house of Kunhikannan by fire and bomb. He also admits that he is also an accused in the case of destroying the house of Valsala by bomb explosion and for setting fire to the trees in her compound between 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. on the same day. He also admits that Suresh Babu (PW­3) and Smijith, who are supposed to be the eye­witnesses are also co-­accused in the case of destroying the house of Kunhikannan by bomb explosion.
• The suggestions put to these witnesses were that in fact he along with other family members, Smijith and Suresh Babu and deceased Parayil Sasi had thrown bombs at various houses and damaged the property of others and while running away Parayil Sasi had tripped over a wooden log and one of the bombs in his hand had exploded killing him. Obviously, the suggestion was denied.
• PW­3 states that he along with deceased Parayil Sasi and Smijith and 1 or 2 other persons had gone to the house of Janu for a meeting in connection with Vijayadashami. The meeting was over by about 8.00 a.m. in the morning and then they heard a sound of the explosion from the side of the L.P. School. Then this witness along with Parayil Sasi and Smijith walked towards the place from where the sound of explosion came.
• Parayil Sasi (deceased) was in front and the others were a little behind. A number of people had gathered there and Accused 1 shouted ‘kill the son of a dog’ and a bomb was thrown at the deceased. Thereafter, other accused threw 2­-3 bombs. This witness and Smijith ran away to the place where meeting was being held and told them about the incident. After some time, they came back to the place of incident. Parayil Sasi was lying dead.
• Suggestions were put to him that the police had registered a case against him, Achutan and Smijith for destroying the houses of Kunhikannan, Anandan and Valsala. He admits that a case has been registered against him and Smijith for attempting to murder Sudheeran by throwing a bomb. This witness is an accused in two murder cases relating to Vijesh and Sreejith. According to this witness, when he came from the house of Janu on hearing the sound, the tea shop of Rajeevan was not open. Suggestion was put that the FIR was lodged only after 5 p.m. which he denied.
• The trial court acquitted the accused and held that there were so many contradictions in the statement of PW­1 and PW­3 that no reliance could be placed on the same. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not been fair and has withheld all this material about the witnesses being prosecuted as accused in the other cases. Later on, an appeal was filed in the High Court of Kerala.
•  The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal filed by the State, set aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court giving permission to both the prosecution and the defence to lead fresh evidence.

Issue:

• As far as the death of Parayil Sasi is concerned, the same is not denied. The issue is who killed him and who was responsible for his death?

Held:

• Held that the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. The SC constrained to observe that 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 we are surprised 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.
• It is obvious that 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 mis­trial 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 discussed hereinabove.
• The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending applications(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.