The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for theft and snatching. The court held that procedural irregularities in investigation did not vitiate the trial and found sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1742 of 2004
CRA.304/1995 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.388/1994 of J.M.F.C.-II, TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/IST APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED.:
MANU GOPALAN, S/O.GOPALAN, T.C.43/1123, NEAR MUTTATHARA, VADUVATHU KOVIL, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR
SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.R.GOPAN
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3110-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl. R.P. No.1742 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st day of October, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 388/1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. He, along with another accused, was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 19.12.1993 at 8.45 a.m, in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft of gold chain belonging to PW1, when PW1 was coming along the Prasanth Nagar road, Pongummoodu, the accused came in a Yamaha Motorcycle and snatched away the gold chain from the neck of PW1. The chain was worth Rs. 10,500/-. The accused have thus been stated to have committed the offence alleged. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts. P1 to P4 documents as also MO1 gold chain in evidence. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After trial, the Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each. The accused challenged the judgment of the Magistrate in Crl. A. No. 304/1995 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad Hoc)-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.
Crl. R.P. No.1742 of 2004 -: 2 :-
officer having jurisdiction to register the case and conduct the investigation is the Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, whereas the case has been registered and part of the investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station. According to the petitioner, this cannot be done. The second contention is that there is no reliable evidence to convict the petitioner of the offence alleged against him.
Crl. R.P. No.1742 of 2004 -: 3 :-
appears for the petitioner. Therefore, I have considered the grounds raised, after perusing the lower court records and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor.
Crl. R.P. No.1742 of 2004 -: 4 :-
eight persons. PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, arrested the accused from Neyyattinkara in connection with Crime No. 37/1994 of the Museum Police Station. On questioning them, they confessed to the guilt in this case also. Ext.P1(a), the relevant portion of the confession of the petitioner himself, has been marked. On the basis of that confession, the gold chain was recovered from the Kerala Jewellery, of which PW3 was the owner, in the presence of the petitioner under Ext.P1 mahazar, which has also been proved. As such, there is sufficient evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the offence charged against him beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below so as to enable me to interfere with the same, in exercise of my powers under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Accordingly, the Criminal R.P. is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether irregularities in the investigation by a police officer without jurisdiction vitiate the trial.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused of the offence alleged.
Whether the revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dayal Singh & Others v. State of UttaranchalExplained¶29
Dayal Singh & Others v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (2) KLD 443 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manu Gopan D
State of Kerala
S. Sri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
