Dismissed

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/172/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the plea challenging the conviction and sentence for theft. The Court held that the evidence of ownership and the confession-incriminating recovery under Section 27 IPC sufficed and stated that revisional jurisdiction does not warrant reappreciation of evidence to reverse concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order directed to be forwarded to trial court for execution of sentence.

Baiju 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 MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 172 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2015 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.679/2012 OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR ARISING FROM

¶7

C.C.NO.272/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

¶8

CHAVAKKAD

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED (PETITIONER IN CUSTODY):

¶10

BAIJU

¶11

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. VASU, CHAKKANDAN VEEDU, KAKKASSERY DESAM, ELAVALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV SRI.RAJIT

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

PP - M P PRASANTH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.R.P No. 172 of 2016

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 3 rd day of August, 2023

¶20

This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) assailing concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad in C.C. No.272/2010 dated 16.10.2012 and the judgment in Crl.A.No.679/2012 dated 11.09.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶22

The prosecution case is that the revision petitioner herein along with a juvenile in conflict with law committed theft of motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8-P-9233 having value of Rs.15,000/- belonged to the defacto complainant, at about 00.30 hours on 09.08.2009.

¶23

On this occurrence, FIR was registered alleging

¶24

Crl.R.P No. 172 of 2016

¶25

¶26

commission of offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of IPC and the same was investigated. Thereafter, Final Report was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance.

¶27

Later the trial court, went on trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the prosecution. Although opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence after questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., no witnesses examined and Exhibits marked on the side of the defence.

¶28

Thereafter, the learned Magistrate appraised the evidence and convicted the revision petitioner/accused as under:

¶29

“In the result,

¶30

1. The accused is found guilty of offence under section 379 I.P.C. and is convicted.

¶31

2. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶32

3. Set off is allowed for the period of pretrial detention undergone by him under section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Crl.R.P No. 172 of 2016

¶34

¶35

4. The bail bond of the accused is cancelled.

¶36

5. Kachit for release of the motor cycle is cancelled and release of the same to P.W1 is made absolute.”

¶37

Even though, the accused challenged conviction

¶38

and sentence before the Appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence the learned Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal.

¶39

While challenging the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that ownership of the motor cycle is not proved. But it appears that the Court below emphasized the evidence of PW1, who is the owner of the vehicle and who gave evidence before the trial court that on the previous night of the occurrence he had locked the motor cycle at the porch of his house and it was found in the morning that the motor cycle was stolen away. Accordingly, he had given Ext.P1 statement before the Police. Therefore, challenge at the instance of the revision petitioner stating that ownership of the motor cycle was

¶40

Crl.R.P No. 172 of 2016

¶41

¶42

not proved cannot be appreciated.

¶43

Coming to the other evidence, in this matter, when the accused was in Police custody, he had given confession statement to PW7, the Investigating Officer and as per the confession statement disclosing authorship of concealment of the motor cycle alleged to be theft, the same was recovered at the instance of the accused, in tune with the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. That apart, PW8 has given evidence that after the occurrence the accused brought the motor cycle to his house for keeping it temporarily on stating that there was finance dues pertaining to the same. Moreover, PWs 3 and 4 also supported the prosecution case.

¶44

The learned Magistrate narrated the circumstantial evidence one by one which forms into a chain leading an irresistible conclusion that the accused herein is the person committed the offence of theft of the motor cycle. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. It is relevant to note that the Appellate Court also re-appreciated evidence and concurred the

¶45

¶46

Crl.R.P No. 172 of 2016

¶47

finding of the trial court on the finding that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused.

¶48

The power of this Court while entertaining revisional jurisdiction, is not exhaustive enough to reappreciate the evidence to enter a contra finding. On perusal of the available materials, nothing substantiated in this revision petition to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

¶49

Therefore, this revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶50

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this

¶51

order to the trial court for information and execution of the sentence, without fail.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶54

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Rashid Vs Shabana

Muhammed Shaji Vs Remsina Mol

Antony Jhony Vs State of Kerala

Joby K.Baby Vs Rency

Sowmyamol.M. Vs State of Kerala

Deepak K. Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala