Single judge held the petitioner was entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the first information, non-examination of key witness, and lack of reliable corroboration, thereby allowing the criminal revision and acquitting the petitioner.
Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted and found not guilty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1257 of 2003()
-----------------------------CRA.261/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.23/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM
REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
LAKSHMANAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, VATTAACKATTU VEEDU, AREEPARAMBU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P. NO.1257 OF 2003
ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.5177 OF 2003 IN CRL.R.P. NO.1257 OF 2003
DISMISSED
22.7.2010
SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
ORDER
CRL.R.P. NO.1257 OF 2003
DATED 22nd JULY, 2010
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No. 1257 OF 2003
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner, the second accused in C.C. No.23 of 1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 427, 429 and 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case as against the first accused was split up and refiled, as he was absconding. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.261 of 1996. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision.
2
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
up hearing the sound and flashed torch light through the window and found the first accused. He knocked at the door and finding PW1, asked him to open the door. Petitioner by that time was causing damages to the vessel and other articles in the house. Fearing the accused, PW1 did not open the door. By that time, his wife woke up and stood behind him. First accused inflicted injury on the left thigh of the calf of PW1, which was tied at the southern lean of the house with a sword stick. Petitioner caused damages to the building and also cut the window bar using MO1 axis. PW1 and the wife cried aloud. Hearing the cry, the neighbours gathered. By that time, the accused caused damages to the plantains and teak seedlings and committed the offence.
3
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
information statement and therefore it should not have been relied on. It is contended that PW2 and PW4 are not eye witnesses and their evidence should not have been relied on. So also it was contended that the evidence of PW1 is not reliable. Petitioner was not present at the scene at all and the case has been foisted against him as there is a case against PW1 and others for molesting his wife.
4
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
the first information of the crime.
5
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
believed, it is clear from the evidence that he did not identify the petitioner on that night. PW4 did not assert that he had seen the petitioner, while he was looking through the window. Though PW4 deposed that he had come out of the house and seen the accused, he has no such case when his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 also cannot be used to find that petitioner was there on that night.
6
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
incident. In such circumstances, petitioner is at least entitled to get the benefit of reasonable doubt. Hence conviction is not sustainable.
Revision is allowed. Conviction of the petitioner in C.C. No.23 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam, as confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.261 of 1996 is set aside. The petitioner is found not guilty of the
offences. He is acquitted.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE)
vps
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
7
Crl.RP No.1257/03.
8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence should be sustained given the inconsistencies in the first information statement, the uncertainty regarding eye witnesses' presence, and the failure to examine the
Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the petitioner's presence and participation in the alleged offences.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the absence of reliable corroboration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakshmanan
State of Kerala
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
