Allowed

Manikantan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2023CRL.A/918/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged convictions for theft and robbery. The High Court set aside the judgment, quashing convictions due to improper charge framing, defective identification procedures lacking a test identification parade, and an illegal confession statement recorded in the accused's unknown language.

What did the court decide?

The judgment under challenge is set aside; all accused are set at liberty forthwith.

Manikantan, Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 918 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTINSCNO.588/2017OF
IADDITIONALDISTRICT&SESSIONSCOURT,KOLLAM
CP NO.65/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, KOLLAM
 CRIME NO.1911/2016 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1MANIKANDAN,
C.NO.2029, CENTRAL PRISON,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2KUMAR,
C.NO.2692, CENTRAL PRISON,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3TAMIZHARASHAN,
C.NO.2696, CENTRAL PRISON,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
 SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
 SRI.ARUN POOMULLI
 SMT.MEERA M.
 SMT.SURABHI SANTHOSH

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DGP,HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.12.2022, THE
COURT ON 18.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

MARY JOSEPH, J.

¶15

- - - - Crl. A. No. 918 of 2018

¶16

- - - - Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed by all three accused involved in SC No.588/2017, each of whom were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of 50,000/- under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Each of them are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of 50,000/- under Section 394 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months. Though all accused were convicted, no separate sentence was awarded under Section 380 IPC. Aggrieved by the finding of guilt, order of conviction and sentence imposed as above, all three accused have come up before this Court in this Appeal.

¶19

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶20

-:3:-

¶21

This Appeal is filed from Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram where the accused were undergoing sentence. SC No.588/2017 was originated from CP No.65/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam and Crime No.1911/2016 of Anchalummoodu Police Station. The case of the prosecution is narrated in brief as follows:

¶22

1^st and 2^nd accused trespassed into the house bearing door No. XVIII/308 of Perinad Panchayath with intention to commit theft. They broke open the kitchen door of the house and entered into the bedroom where PW1 and PW2 were sleeping, snatched away the gold chain worn by PW2 and also took two gold bangles from a vanity bag kept below the cot lying there and also currency notes worth `400/-. PW1 and PW2 woke up. PW2 screamed and thereby the 1^st and 2^nd accused rushed out. PW3 was sleeping in the hall. He also woke up and chased 1^st and 2^nd accused. PW2 had put on the light in the room. 3^rd accused who was waiting outside with a bat beat PW3 on his forehead. PW3 followed them and was hit with the bat on the back side of his head and also on left part of his body. It was

¶23

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶24

-:4:-

¶25

alleged that all three accused did the above acts in furtherance of their common intention.

¶26

On the basis of the information furnished by PW1 before Anchalummoodu Police Station, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC. The case was registered by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station. Preliminary Investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station. The accused was arrested by Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta in Crime No. 1470/16 of that police station. While in custody, the investigating officer received information that the said accused had committed theft in the house of PW1 and accordingly he was handed over to Anchalummoodu Police Station. Pursuant to the disclosure made by him that the gold ornaments thieved were sold by the 1^st accused in a jewellery, it’s owner was approached and ingots made from the gold ornaments were obtained from him by the Investigating Officer. The accused were arrested and produced before PWs 1 to 3, who identified them. According to them A1

¶27

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶28

-:5:-

¶29

and A2 were the persons trespassed into the house and committed theft of gold ornaments and money. A3 was waiting outside with the bat and hit PW3 when he rushed out and chased the 1^st and the 2^nd accused. On concluding the investigation, a final report was laid by the Investigating Officer before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Kollam. The final report was taken on file and by proceedings initiated as CP No.65/2017, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kollam. That court has taken the case on its file as SC No.588/2017 and made it over for trial to the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam (for short ‘the court below’). Since then, the accused were in judicial custody.

¶30

On the basis of the materials available and upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence, charge was framed against each of the accused, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty to the charge read over to them. Thus the case was scheduled for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 13 were examined, Exts.P1 to P6 were marked and MOs 1 to 5 and MO5 (a) were

¶31

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶32

-:6:-

¶33

identified. On concluding the evidence of the prosecution, all three accused were questioned under Section 313 1(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). They denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. A1 had given a statement that on 14.10.2016, while the accused were sitting in their house at Tamil Nadu, policemen from Kottarakkara came to Madurai and visited their house at night. They took them under the guise of questioning. They were taken to Kottarakkara and manhandled. Since cases were not found registered at Kottarakara, they were handed over to Circle Inspector, Sooranadu. Thereafter they were falsely implicated in the case on hand. A2 and A3 have also stated in tune with the version of A1.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence were heard. Grounds having not been made out to record an order of acquittal of the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., each of them were called upon to enter on their defence. They did not adduce any evidence. The court below framed the following points for consideration.

¶35

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶36

-:7:-

¶37

“1. Whether the accused break opened the kitchen door of house bearing door No.XVIII/308 of Perinad Panchayath and A1 and A2 trespssed into the house of PW1 with the intention to commit theft?

¶38

Whether at the first floor of the house the first accused snatched a gold chain worn by PW2 and also committed theft of two gold bangles and currency note worth Rs.400/- kept in a vanity bag below cot?

¶39

Whether the 3^rd accused with a bat beat PW3 on his forehead and back side of the head when he followed A1 and A2?

¶40

Whether the accused did the acts in furtherance of their common intention?

¶41

Whether the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under/ss 457, 461, 380, 394 r/w 34 IPC ?

¶42

If so, what is the punishment to be awarded to the accused?”

¶43

All the points were considered together by the court

¶44

below. The owner of the house, where the accused has committed theft was examined as PW1 and his wife who lost her gold chain in the incident was examined as PW2. PW3 is none

¶45

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶46

-:8:-

¶47

other than the son of PWs 1 and 2. PW4 and PW5 are attestors to the scene mahazar. PW6 is a colleague of PW3 in whose house a theft was committed earlier. PW7 is the proprietor of Raj Jewellers where the gold ornaments thieved were sold by the 1^st accused. The ingot was recovered therefrom. PW8 is none other than the Village Officer of Panayam Village, who prepared the scene plan in the case. PW9 is a doctor, who is also the proprietor of PNNM Hospital at Anchalummoodu. PW3 was examined by him and the wound certificate was marked through him. PW10 is the Additional Sub Inspector of Anchalummoodu Police Station, before whom the First Information Statement was lodged. It is marked in evidence as Ext.P1. Based on Ext.P1, Ext.P6 was registered. PW11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Anchalummoodu Police Station, who took over the investigation as directed by the Circle Inspector, Kollam West Police Station. He took A1 and A3 in custody. A2 was undergoing treatment and therefore his custody was not obtained. 1^st accused was questioned by him and it was revealed that the gold ornaments thieved were sold to a Jeweller at Haripad. As led by the 1^st accused, PW11

¶48

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶49

-:9:-

¶50

proceeded to the jewellery functioning in Door Nos.VIII/257 and VIII/242 of Haripad Municipality. There the 1^st accused and PW7 identified themselves. PW7 handed over the ingots stating that those were the melted form of the gold jewellery sold by 1^st accused in his shop. The gold ingots were identified as MO5 and MO5(a). Seizure mahazar was also prepared.

¶51

PW7 gave evidence that the ingots handed over were made out of the gold chain and the two bangles sold by the 1^st accused to him. The relevant portion of the confession statement of 1^st accused was also produced and marked in evidence as Ext.P3(a). According to PW7, the gold ornaments sold were melted to form the ingots. According to him the gold ornaments were bought from the 1^st accused for `1,10,000/- and those at the time of the purchase weighed 5 sovereigns. PW7 also attested the recovery mahazar. PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta Police Station arrested 1^st accused in Crime No.1470/16 of Sooranad Police Station. While questioning the 1^st accused, he obtained information about the case on hand. Since the place of occurrence comes within the purview of

¶52

-:10:-

¶53

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶54

Anchalummoodu police station, the case records were sent to that police station. After concluding the investigation, PW11 laid a final report against the accused before the court. Charge was framed by the court and on denial of it by the accused when read over, the trial commenced. The charge framed is extracted hereunder :

¶55

“Firstly that you the first and second accused on 22/09/2016 at 3 am committed house trespass with intention to commit theft by break opening the kitchen door of house bearing door No. XVIII/308 of Perinad Panchayath belonging to CW1 and thereby you committed the offence punishable u/s. 457 r/w 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.

¶56

Secondly that inside the house at the first floor, the first among you snatched away a gold chain weighing three sovereigns worn by CW2 and also committed theft of two gold bangles kept in the vanity bag below the cot in which CWS 1 and 2 were sleeping and also robbed currency notes worth Rs. 400/- and thereby you have committed the offence punishable u/s. 380 r/w 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.

¶57

Thirdly when CW3 woke up on hearing the scream of CW2 and ran behind A1 and A2, the third among you with a bat beat CW3 on his forehead, back side of head and left part of the body and caused injuries and thereby you

¶58

-:11:-

¶59

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶60

committed the offence punishable u/s. 394 r/w 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.

¶61

Lastly that you did the acts in furtherance of your common intention and thus you have committed the offence punishable u/s. 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.”

¶62

The contention mainly advanced by the learned counsel was on the impropriety in framing of charges. According to him as per the prosecution allegation, two among the three accused trespassed into the house of PW1, broke open the kitchen door and stole a gold chain worn by PW2 and two gold bangles and `400/from a vanity bag kept under their cot. As per the case of the prosecution, when PW1 screamed, PW2 woke up, and the accused rushed out of the house through the kitchen door. PW3 lying in the hall also woke up on hearing the hues of his mother and found two persons rushing out of the house. He chased them. A man was found standing outside the house and he beat him on his head as well as various other parts of his body. All accused then fled off from

¶63

the scene. PW3 approached PWs 1 and 2 with bleeding from his

¶64

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶65

-:12:-

¶66

head. PW1 went to the police station to lodge the FIS. According to them the accused were produced before them during the course of investigation. Those who trespassed were identified by them as the 1^st and the 3^rd accused and the other one who did not, as the 2^nd accused. According to PW6, he was a collegue of PW3 and a chain, bat and a torch were thieved from his house. He was examined by the Investigating Officer and the bat and the torch were identified by him as the properties stolen from his house. PW7 deposed that the gold ornaments thieved were sold in his jewellery by the 1^st accused.

¶67

It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the case of the prosecution, A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW1 and committed theft. But, during examination PW1 and PW3 have gone to the extent that 1^st and 3^rd accused trespassed into the house and the 2^nd accused did not, but waited outside. The witnesses identified accused 1 and 3 as the persons trespassed into their house and committed theft and the 2^nd accused, as waiting outside the house with a bat. The learned counsel for the appellants

¶68

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶69

-:13:-

¶70

contended in the context that there was no proper identification of the accused by PWs 1 to 3.

¶71

According to the learned counsel, the charge framed by the

¶72

court extracted above is relevant in the context. As per that 1^st and 2^nd accused were charged by the court for offences under Section 457 and 380 read with section 34 IPC; the 2^nd accused, for an offence under Section 457 read with Section 34 IPC, and the 3^rd accused, for an offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge was also framed as against all accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

¶73

Therefore, the 1^st accused stood charged for offences under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC, the 2^nd accused for an offence under Section 457 read with Section 34 IPC and the 3^rd accused for an offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC. 1^st and 2^nd accused were also charged for an offence under Section 394 IPC. Charge was not framed against the 2^nd accused for an offence under Section 380 IPC. Therefore, charge was found framed not in accordance with the allegations in the prosecution case.

¶74

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶75

-:14:-

¶76

It is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the impropriety and irregularity in the charge framed, the accused are

¶77

prejudiced. According to him though charge was framed in the above manner, all the accused were found guilty for the offences under Section 457, 380, and 394 read with Section 34 IPC and were convicted and sentenced for punishment provided for those offences.

¶78

The trial in the case was faced by the accused only for the offences for which charge was framed by the court against him. Accused were identified by PWs 1 to 3 as the persons who trespassed into their house. It was found from the extract of the charge above that accused Nos.1 and 2 alone was charged for an offence of trespass and Accused No.3, not. As per the prosecution case also, accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed an offence of criminal trespass.

¶79

Charge is framed with a view to inform the accused that they will have to face trial for those offences. In the case on hand, accused 1 to 3 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 457, 394 and 380 IPC, without

¶80

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶81

-:15:-

¶82

framing charges against them for those offences. Therefore, a fair trial cannot be said to have been held against the accused and therefore conviction of accused 1 to 3 for all the offences is illegal. Accused No.2 was found convicted for an offence under Section 380 IPC on the basis of a charge framed against him. Similarly the 1^st and 2^nd accused respectively were found convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 380 and 394 IPC, without a charge being framed against them for those offences. Accused No.3 was also convicted for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC without a charge being framed against him for those offences. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the trial held against accused Nos.1 to 3 suffers for unfairness and is vitiated. Viewed in that backdrop, the identification of each of the accused with reference to the acts allegedly committed by them also suffers.

¶83

Moreover, the incident in question was occurred at 3:00 am on 22.09.2016. PWs 1 and 2 have spoken that they had seen two persons rushing out from their bedroom on hearing a hue from PW2. According to PW1, he had put on light and found the accused

¶84

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶85

-:16:-

¶86

rushing out. While lodging the FIS itself the version of PW1 was that he had not seen the accused rushing out of the room. It was not stated by him that the accused who had rushed out from his house could be identified by him. The version of PW3 before the police was that the accused were seen in the light put on by PW1. But, instead of identifying A2 as the person trespassed into the house alongiwth A1, A3 was identified. As per the prosecution case, A3 was then standing outside the house with a bat and PW3 was bet with that. When the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 was taken as a whole, it was the 3^rd accused who trespassed into the room along with the 1^st accused and participated in the offence of theft of gold ornaments and money and it was the second accused, who assaulted PW3 with the bat. Discrepancies crept into the charge if are minor ones, could be ignored and the trial can be taken as not vitiated. But the discrepancies pointed out as above being material ones, are liable to affect the very foundation of the prosecution case and therefore, the trial undoubtedly is vitiated.

¶87

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶88

-:17:-

¶89

The learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed out that the entire confession statement was marked in evidence through the Investigating Officer as Ext.P3 (a) and therefore, it cannot be relied on. It is noticed that the Investigating Officer during examination as PW11 deposed only the relevant part from Ext.P3(a). Though the entire confession statement was marked in evidence as Ext.P3 (a), as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), only the relevant part that leads to the discovery of a thing or a factum alone will be admissible in evidence. The production of the entire confession statement and marking of it as Ext.P3(a) would not help the prosecution to treat the entire statement as relevant and admissible in evidence. Therefore, the argument advanced as above by the learned counsel is discarded being untenable.

¶90

The further contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that arrest memo is not forthcoming in evidence. It is found that only formal arrest of the accused was made since they were already in custody in another crime. Therefore,

¶91

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶92

-:18:-

¶93

preparation of an arrest memo is not at all warranted in the context on hand and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that for non preparation of an arrest memo the prosecution case is badly affected is also discarded.

¶94

The contention lastly advanced by the learned counsel was that accused Nos.1 to 3 were total strangers to PWs 1 to 3. It was for the first time that they had seen the accused. PWs 1 to 3 had watched the accused in the course of themselves rushing out from the house after the commission of the offence. True that the evidence has come to the effect that light was put on by PW1. But how the exact identity of the accused was captured by PWs 1 to 3 is not known. As already stated, PWs 1 and 2 had not stated to the police that the accused could be identified by them. PW3 had stated before the police that he had seen the accused and could identify them, but, the statement cannot be taken to have basis, since the accused at the relevant time were rushing fast to escape from the clutches of persons chasing them.

¶95

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶96

-:19:-

¶97

The learned counsel has relied on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani V. State of Maharashtra [1982 (1) SCC 700] where it was held by the Apex Court that identification of the accused for the first time in court without any prior acquaintance and identification in a test identification parade would be valueless and unreliable. The learned counsel has also relied on Muhammed Yousaf V. State of Kerala and Jaseentha George V. State of Kerala [MANU/KE/0477/2022] wherein it was held that “when the accused was not known to the witnesses before the incident and Test Identification Parade was not held but, was shown to the witnesses only by the police, the identification of such accused at the Court becomes valueless.”

¶98

In the case on hand PWs 1 to 3 have no claim of prior acquaintance with the accused previous to the commission of the offences itself. It appears from their evidence that they had seen the accused for the first time while they were rushing out fastly from the place of occurrence after commission of theft at their house.

¶99

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶100

-:20:-

¶101

The offence committed in the house of PWs 1 to 3 was theft of their belongings. They were sleeping at the relevant time when the accused trespassed into their house and committed the acts alleged. The gold chain of PW1 was snatched and the gold bangles and `400/- kept in a vanity bag under the cot were also taken away. PW1 woke up when the gold chain worn by his wife was snatched off by the accused. She screamed aloud and on hearing that PW3 also woke up. Therefore, undoubtedly they must only be in a state of fear and anxiety. The identification of the accused who was only there for a spur of moment is something improbable. The accused were identified by the witnesses in court during trial. PW3 alone had spoken that the accused were brought to his house and then identified. Identification of the accused for the first time in court cannot be considered as legal and proper. When persons not known to a witness are culprits, Section 9 of the Act speaks about the importance to conduct the Test Identification Parade. If the accused were caused to be identified by the witnesses in the Test Identification Parade during investigation, the later identification by them in the court

¶102

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶103

-:21:-

¶104

can be taken as a valid and legal identification. On the contrary, when Test Identification Parade was not conducted and accused were identified by the witnesses only during trial, that identification cannot be a legal and proper one. It was also argued by the learned counsel that though 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments were lost from the house of PWs 1 to 3, the gold ingot recovered from PW7’s jewellery weighed only 31.9 grams.

¶105

The argument of the learned counsel was that when the weight of the stolen properties did not tally with that of the ingot recovered from PW7’s jewellery, the ingots cannot be treated as made from the gold ornaments lost. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the articles lost were gold ornaments and the article recovered is ingot having only lesser weight as spoken by PW7. There may be possibility for reduction of the weight of the gold ornaments when melted to form the ingot.

¶106

True that the Investigating Officer during his examination failed to explain the reduction in weight of the gold. PW7 had also not offered any explanation about that during

¶107

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶108

-:22:-

¶109

examination. The court below also failed to appreciate those aspects.

¶110

The learned counsel has pointed out that all the accused were natives of Madurai in Tamil Nadu. There is no case for the prosecution that the accused are familiar with Malayalam language. It is found from Ext.P3(a) that the confession statements have been recorded in Malayalam. Since the accused being natives of Tamil Nadu, the Investigating Officer has to record his confession statement in the language known to them. The contention of the learned counsel that the accused being natives of Tamil Nadu and familiar with Tamil language, the confession statement ought to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in Tamil itself and a translated version must be obtained and produced before the court for convenience.

¶111

The learned counsel has also relied on Sanjay Oraon

¶112

V. State of Kerala [MANU/KE/1378/2021]. It was held in the case:

¶113

“But the principle applies squarely even when the accused speaks in a language not familiar to the person recording it, when a translation is warranted, where a

¶114

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶115

-:23:-

¶116

third person comes in between the accused and the Investigating Officer. The person recording the statement obviously is not aware of what the accused says and it is the translator's words that are recorded. When it comes to Court the satisfaction of the Court also stands substituted by the satisfaction of the translator. The accused is left in the dark as to how his words are reflected in the statement and in the translated form he has no chance of challenging it. Proof of such a statement, after excluding all possible sources of error can be achieved only if the statement, as their Lordships in the fore cited decisions held; is recorded verbatim in the language spoken and a translation appended. In that event even the translator need not be examined and the Prosecution or the Court can get the services of a responsible person, like a language teacher, to opine on the exact words spoken to verify the genuineness of the recorded translation. We find the translation of the statement as recorded at Ext. P6(a) to be falling short of the requirement judicially warranted under Section 27 and the consequent recovery to be of no value as an inculpating circumstance against the accused.”

¶117

PW11 has no case that the accused had spoken the

¶118

statement to him in Tamil since they are natives of Tamil Nadu and caused it translated in Malayalam. Even if it is so, it is against

¶119

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶120

-:24:-

¶121

the legal principles envisaged under Section 27 of the Act. The court cannot be convinced from the translated version furnished as Ext.P3

¶122

(a) that those were the original statements made by the accused to PW11. If an accused who doesn’t know the local language is questioned, his version has to be recorded in his language itself and caused it to be translated by a licenced translator. Only when the statements were made available in such manner, it can be treated as valid statements and can be admitted in evidence with the help of Section 27 of the Act. It is found from Ext.P3(a) that the confession statement which incorporates the relevant part of the disclosure statement were recorded in Malayalam. It is also found that during examination under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., all questions regarding the incriminating circumstances were put to each of the accused in Malayalam and the reply to those were also found recorded in Malayalam. There is absolutely nothing to establish that the accused are conversant with Malayalam. Therefore, there is total want of a fair procedure adopted while recording the confession statement which also incorporates the disclosure

¶123

Crl.A. No. 918 of 2018

¶124

-:25:-

¶125

statement and while questioning the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused can only be said to be prejudiced by such a recourse adopted by the Investigating Officer.

¶126

In view of the discussions made on various aspects as above, this Court finds that the judgment under challenge by which the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 394 IPC, convicted and sentenced with punishment for those, suffers for illegality, impropriety and infirmity and is only to be reversed.

¶127

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside. The jail authorities on obtaining release order from this Court shall set the accused at liberty forthwith.

¶128

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶129

MJL

Manikantan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikantan, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anilkumar Vs M.K.Sanilkumar

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Latha Vs Sankar

Vasu V.N Vs Linto Thomas

Afsal Vs Ahamed

Jojo Scaria, Vs M.V Joseph (Pappachan)