About the Author
Meena .P is member of LJRF and MSF National Constitution Literacy Mission
Introduction
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court presided over by Justice K. Babu, has ordered the consolidation of two separate trials involving charges of sexual assault and abetment of suicide against a single accused. The order was issued on Wednesday, the 24th day of May 2023, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
Facts of the case
In 2021, a 17-year-old girl was found hanging in her family home. The case was registered as Crime No.111/2021 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The charges were later modified to include Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, based on allegations that the petitioner encouraged the girl to commit suicide. A postmortem examination revealed that the girl had been sexually assaulted when she was under 17 years old. As a result, on June 16, 2021, Crime No.114/2021 was registered, charging the petitioner under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 4 read with Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act.The petitioner, in this case, faced charges under Section 305 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act before the Sessions Court in Thalasseri. In addition, he also faced charges under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, along with various sections of the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act, and the SC/ST (POA) Act before the Additional District and Sessions Court-I in Thalasseri.
Contentions of the Appellant
The petitioner’s counsel argued for a single trial, stating that the alleged acts were part of the same transaction. The counsel claimed that separate trials by different courts would unfairly prejudice the accused and violate Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. They referenced the case of the State of Karnataka v. M. Balakrishna [1980 CRL. L.J. 1145] to support their position.
Contentions of the Respondent
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that, based on the given facts, the alleged acts should not be considered part of the same transaction. It was contended that the acts were distinct and different from each other.
Judgement
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.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. 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. 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. 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. The accused does not have a vested right to seek joinder of charges, and the court has the discretion to try the offences separately. The petitioner’s request to quash the Final Reports or try both cases together is not supported based on the facts and principles discussed.The petition was dismissed.
