The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two accused challenging their conviction and sentence for theft. The court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated evidence and their finding did not warrant interference.
Revision petition dismissed; appellants must surrender to suffer sentence on 01.12.2016.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2950 of 2009 ( )
CRL.A 250/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC 234/1996 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 & 3:
BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.2950 of 2009
O R D E R
The accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.234 of 1996 on
the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class - II, Nedumangad filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 457,
380 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.2950/09
: 2 :
from there.
this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or
the concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or
Crl.R.P.No.2950/09
: 3 :
incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C., does not warrant any interference by this court.
does not call for any interference by this court.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial
court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/20.10.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence by the courts below warrants interference in this revision petition.
Whether the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent findings were perverse or incorrect.
Whether the sentence awarded by the courts below calls for interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kannan
Raju
State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
