The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for the offence of personating another under IPC Sections 205 and 109. The court upheld the active role attributed to the petitioner, finding courts below were not perverse.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/2ND PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 370 of 2012 ()
-----------------------------CRA.409/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY CC.5/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
JOSE, S/O ANTONEY, KUNNEL HOUSE, AYYANKUNNU P.O. THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOSEPH SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------Crl.RP No.370 of 2012
Dated this the 21st day of February 2012
Order
The revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 205 read with Section 109 of IPC by both the courts below. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
Cr.RP 370/12 2
guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, Prosecution had Pws 1 and 2 examined and Exts.P1 and P1(a) marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. He denied all incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 205 r/w 109 of I.P.C. In appeal, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Cr.RP 370/12 3
The result is that the revision petition is devoid of any merits and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta
Cr.RP 370/12 4
Cr.RP 370/12 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner was correctly convicted and sentenced for an offence instigated at his instance.
Whether the lower appellate court erred in confirming the conviction and sentence despite lack of evidence linking the petitioner to instigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jose
State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
