Allowed

Ali P.A v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/2934/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for theft under Section 379 IPC. The court acquitted the appellant due to insufficient evidence, noting discrepancies in witness testimony and lack of signatures on the seizure mahazar.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond cancelled and appellant set at liberty.

Ali P.A Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 19382016

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2934 of 2010 ( )

¶6

Crl.A 803/2008 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CC 170/2006 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

ALI.P.A,

¶9

AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER,, PARERIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU, KADAVALLUR, VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶11

SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.K.A.ANAS

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.2934 of 2010

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19^th day of September 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The accused in C.C. No.170 of 2006 on the files of

¶21

the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wadakkanchery filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by

¶22

the courts below under Section 379 I.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 18.5.2006 at

¶25

3.30 a.m., the revision petitioner was found driving lorry bearing Reg.No.KRZ 7839, with sand stolen from

Konavally Kadavu.

Crl.R.P.2934/2010

: 2 :

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW4 were examined

¶30

and Exts.P1 to P3(a) were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced from the side of the revision petitioner.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that there is no convincing evidence before the court to prove that the lorry with the sand was seized as alleged by the prosecution and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. PW1 was the driver of the Police jeep in which PW4, the Sub Inspector reached the place of occurrence. PW1 stated that when PW1 reached Konavally Kadavu along with PW4, he saw the lorry driven by the revision petitioner coming towards them. PW4 signalled to stop the lorry. The lorry

¶32

Crl.R.P.2934/2010

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

was stopped. PW4 seized the lorry as per Ext.P1 mahazar. However, PW1 stated in cross-examination that the lorry was parked at the Konavally Kadavu when PW1 and PW4 reached the place. PW2 is an independent witness who did not support the prosecution case.

¶35

PW3 is the Secretary of Desamangalam Grama Panchayat, who issued Ext.P2 certificate stating that no pass/permission was given to lorry bearing Reg.No.KRZ 7839 for transporting the sand from Konavally Kadavu.

¶36

PW4 was the Sub Inspector who detected the offence. He stated that when he reached Konavally Kadavu, the lorry was seen coming from Konavally Kadavu. He arrested the revision petitioner. He sldo seized the lorry as per Ext.P1 mahazar.

¶37

Crl.R.P.2934/2010

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

Though PW1 stated that he put his signature in

¶40

Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P1 does not contain the signature of

¶41

PW1. PW1 was also not able to state during his examination as to what happened to the driver of the lorry. Though PW2 was cited as a witness to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, his signature is also not present in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. There is no explanation as to why Ext.P1 mahazar did not contain the signature of PW1 and PW2. It is also not discernible as to why PW1 could not state as to what happened to the revision petitioner after the seizure of the lorry. The evidence of PW1 in his examination-in-chief is that the lorry was signalled to stop by PW4 when PW1 and PW4 reached the place. However, his evidence in cross-examination would show that the vehicle was not

¶42

Crl.R.P.2934/2010

¶43

: 5 :

¶44

moving and the same was being parked at that time. Having gone through the evidence of PW1, I am of the view that his evidence does not inspire evidence. That apart, the absence of signature of PW1 and PW2 in Ext.P1 mahazar also gives room for doubt with regard to the time of preparation of Ext.P1, as correctly argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is also no evidence as to what happened to the sand seized in this case. The evidence of PW4 is also silent with regard to the same. Since Ext.P1 seizure Mahazar does not contain the signature of PW1 and PW2, the said mahazar cannot be relied on to corroborate the solitary evidence of PW4 regarding the occurrence. In view of the above reasons, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish

¶45

Crl.R.P.2934/2010

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. Consequently the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence

¶48

passed by the courts below under Section 379 I.P.C. cannot

¶49

be sustained.

¶50

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 379 I.P.C. and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and he is set at

¶51

liberty.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶54

dl/22.9.2016

¶55

// True Copy //

¶56

PA to Judge

Ali P.A v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali P.A v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose V.O. Vs the Food Inspector, Chalakkudy Circle.

Sajeer Vs K P a Store

Prasad Kumar P. Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Devidas @ Baby Vs State of Kerala

Imbichi Ashraf Vs State of Kerala