The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction for theft. It set aside the judgment below due to lack of recovery, absence of a test identification parade, and reliance on uncorroborated confession and inconsistent identifying features stated by the victim.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled and accused set at liberty.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 286 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 249/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM DATED 24-01-2006
CP 13/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED::
1. BIJU, (ACCUSED NO.1)
2. BIJU. K. CHACKO, (ACCUSED NO.2) S/O. CHACKO, KOTTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE MANGANAM KARA.
BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
J U D G M E N T
Three persons faced prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 413 read with Section 34 of IPC. Among them, the third accused was fortunate enough to be acquitted, while A1 and A2 were less fortunate and they were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. Consequently, each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of 11,000/- each with a₹ default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six months each. If the fine amount was collected, 20,000/- was directed to₹ be paid to PW2 under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Set off as per law was allowed.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-2-
some queries and while she was engaged in that process, her chain was snatched. Going by Ext.P1 First Information Statement, she seemed to have chased the accused persons before she fell down. Hearing that his mother-in-law has been lying unconscious, PW1 went to the place and took her to the hospital and thereafter he went to the Station and laid Ext.P1 First Information Statement. PW4 recorded the same and registered crime as per Ext.P1(a) FIR. Since the assailants could not be traced at that point of time, an undetected report was filed before court.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-3-
was a confession statement of the accused also. PW4, the Investigating Officer in this case, after getting the FIR without even bothering to get the accused identified by PW2, laid final report before court.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-4-
4 examined and had Exts. P1 to P3 marked. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on the defence side.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-5-
of the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-6-
evidence of PW3 and more strange is the version given by PW3 is that the accused confessed about their involvement in crime No. 297/2003. There was no occasion for them to make confession and that was only a cooked up one. It is significant to notice that there was no test identification parade conducted. The learned counsel then went on to point out that it is based on this frivolous and brittle evidence that A1 and A2 have been sentenced by the court below.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-7-
identification in court. But to ensure that the Investigating Officer is proceeding at the right direction, test identification parade is given importance.
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-8-
Crl.A. No. 286 of 2006
-9-
For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside and it is held that the accused are not guilty of the charges levelled against them. They stand acquitted. Their bail bond shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction is sustainable where there is no recovery, no test identification parade, and identification evidence is flawed.
Whether the confession obtained during arrest of a different crime is sufficient to link accused to the present charge.
Whether the discrepancy in the description of the accused, consistent with a lack of reliable identification, warrants setting aside the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.A.661/2006Referred¶43
4 provisions across 2 enactments
BIJU
BIJU. K. CHACKO
STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
