Dismissed

K.v.Gireesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision against conviction under Sections 454, 461 and 380 IPC. Court dismissed revision, holding lower courts appreciated evidence correctly and noting that absent specific direction, sentence must run consecutively.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; no direction issued regarding concurrent or consecutive running of sentence as lower courts failed to bring other matters to notice.

K.v.Gireesh Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.184 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 457/2014 DATED 25-02-2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 955/2013 DATED 12-05-2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

K.V.GIREESH AGED 41 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARA MARAR, CHIRAKKAL, NEAR KADALAYI TEMPLE, KANNUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ASHIS KORATTYSWAROOPAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.184 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The revision is against the judgment of

¶20

conviction and sentence under Sections 454, 461 and 380 IPC by the trial court and the first appellate court mainly on the ground that the jewellery owner from whom the stolen article recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act turned hostile to the prosecution. Hence there is failure to establish recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But both the courts below failed in appreciating the above said incriminating fact in its correct perspective. But it is submitted that the defacto complainant had identified the gold ornaments recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

¶21

and the finger prints collected from the occurrence place found to be that of accused No.1 based on the expert opinion given under

¶22

Section 45 of the Evidence Act. One of the

¶23

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.184 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

witnesses to the alleged recovery, PW4 deposed in tune with the prosecution.

¶26

Regarding the sentence awarded, no

¶27

direction was issued regarding whether it has to be run concurrently or consecutively. When there is no direction, the sentence has to be run consecutively.

¶28

Nothing else was brought to the notice of this Court so as to exercise revisional power. Revision fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

K.v.Gireesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Gireesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Babu Vs State of Kerala

Harilal Vs State of Kerala

Babu Lijith.v Vs the State of Kerala

Geejo Francis, Vs the State of Kerala

Daniel Vs Shajan

Jamsheer, Vs State of Kerala