KOCHI: The state government on Monday approached the Kerala High Court challenging the order of Kasaragod Sessions court discharging BJP state president K Surendran in a case related to the Manjeshwar election bribery case.
According to the prosecution, Surendran and others bribed Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) candidate K. Sundara with Rs 2.5 lakh and a smartphone to withdraw his candidacy in the 2021 Assembly elections. The police also alleged that the accused persons threatened, K Sundara, a BSP candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community, for withdrawal of his election nomination paper.
The criminal revision petition filed by the state government stated that the discharge of the accused for the offence charged against him is illegal and against the materials produced by the prosecution. There is sufficient and overwhelming evidence/material produced by the prosecution to place the accused on trial for such offences. The sessions court ought not to have found that there was an inordinate delay in recording the statement of Sundara. The sessions court overlooked the fact that Sundara was questioned immediately after three days of the complaint.
The state government also said that the sessions court had gone beyond the jurisdiction available under section 227 of CRPC and proceeded to hold a mini-trial purely based on materials that are not put to proof. The jurisdiction of the court under section 227 is to consider whether there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Consideration of existence of sufficient ground does not mean that the court can evaluate the materials produced by the police as if it is conducting the trial of the accused.
The sessions court has relied on two statements given by Sundara and found certain inconsistencies thereby concluding that the statement of him cannot be believed. This approach of the court is illegal and impermissible under the law. It is only at the stage of trial the court can evaluate the material and find out whether the statement of Sundara is to be believed or not. Further, during the trial, the witness will have an opportunity to explain the contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies, if any, which is denied in the instant case.
The finding of the sessions court that Sundara accepted the alleged bribe voluntarily with free consent is wrong and against the facts. Those findings are against the ethos, purpose, and object behind the SC/ST (Provision of Atrocities) Act, submitted by the state government.