THE KERALA HIGH COURT ALLOWS FOR THE JOINDER OF CHARGES OF OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE SAME PERSON

Case Title : JITHIN P V STATE OF KERALA

Bench : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

Case No : CRL.MC NO. 6346 OF 2022

Date : 24/05/2023

FACTS OF THE CASE –

1. The petitioner is the accused in two separate cases: S.C.No.547 of 2021 and S.C.No.595 of 2021.
2. In S.C.No.595 of 2021, the petitioner faces charges under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 4 r/w Section 3(a), Section 6 r/w Section 5(l), Section 12 r/w Sections 11(iv), 11(v) and 11(vi) of the POCSO Act, Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. In S.C. No. 547 of 2021, the petitioner faces charges under Section 305 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. The petitioner has filed petitions seeking to quash the Final Reports in both cases and alternatively requesting that both cases be tried together.
5. On 09.06.2021, a 17-year-old girl was found hanging in her family house. The petitioner was accused of abetting the minor girl’s suicide.
6. The petitioner has been accused in both cases related to the sexual assault of the girl, with different charges and provisions applied.
7. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the acts alleged in both cases constitute the same transaction and that trying them separately would cause prejudice to the accused. They rely on the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Balakrishna [1980 CRL. L.J. 1145] to support their argument.
8. The prosecution and the counsel for the respondents argue that the alleged acts are distinct and different, and therefore, separate trials are justified.

JUDGEMENT –

1. Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) allows for the joinder of charges of offences committed by the same person, provided they form part of the same transaction.
2. The determination of whether acts constitute the same transaction depends on factors such as commonality of purpose or design, continuity of action, proximity of time, and unity of place.
3. The Supreme Court has held that there cannot be a universal formula for determining the same transaction, and each case must be decided based on its specific circumstances.
4. In the present case, the acts alleged in Crime No.114/2021 (sexual assault and rape) were committed between December 2020 and February 2021, while the acts alleged in Crime No.111/2021 (threats and harassment leading to suicide) were committed in June 2021.
5. The acts were not proximate in time, lacked continuity, and did not demonstrate a community of purpose or design. Therefore, they do not constitute the same transaction.
6. The accused does not have a vested right to seek joinder of charges, and the court has the discretion to try the offences separately.
7. The petitioner’s request to quash the Final Reports or try both cases together is not supported based on the facts and principles discussed

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view judgement

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO