Partly allowed

Saidalavi @ Sayed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/2666/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court confirmed the conviction of an appellant for receiving stolen property under IPC Section 411 but modified the sentence from six to three months due to his age and renal disease.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from six months to three months' simple imprisonment; appellant directed to surrender for remaining term on 06.11.2023.

Saidalavi @ Sayed Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 12TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2666 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2011 IN CC 417/2004 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,MANJERI

¶7

CRA 156/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SAIDALAVI @ SAYED,
S/O. MAMMED,
NJANDUKANNI HOUSE, PULPATTA,
POOKOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.P.A.RAJESH
SMT.SMITHA BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION -,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M K

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of October,2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Court of Session, Manjeri Division(Adhoc-II, Manjeri) (Appellate Court), in Crl.A. No.156/2010, confirming the judgment of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri(Trial Court), in C.C. No.417/2014, convicting the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The revision petitioner was the second accused and the first

¶22

accused died during the trial.

¶23

Facts in brief:

¶24

The prosecution case is that, on 13.09.2004, at about 10.30 a.m., the first accused broke open the house of the PW1 and stole her gold ornaments and

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

Rs.11,000/- belonging to PWs 1 & 2. The second accused(revision petitioner) knowing that the gold ornaments were stolen property, pledged some of the gold ornaments with a finance company and sold the remaining gold ornaments to a merchant. Thus, the second accused committed the offence under Section 411 of the IPC.

¶28

The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the accusation read over to them. Pending trial, the first accused died. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 23, through whom Exts P1 to P17 and MOs 1 to 24 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances alleged against him by the prosecution under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

¶29

Trial Court judgment:

¶30

The Trial Court, after analysing the materials

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

placed on record, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The charge against the first accused was dismissed as abated.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.156/2010 before the Appellate Court.

¶35

Appellate Court judgment:

¶36

The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by directing the revision petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶37

It is questioning the conviction and sentence, the revision petition is filed.

¶38

Heard; Sri. Babu. S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and

¶39

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

Smt. Pushpalatha M.K., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

¶42

The point is whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below.

¶43

It is trite, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, to correct orders which are manifestly perverse and unreasonable. The power is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction. Merely because another view is possible, revisional power under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P..C. shall not be exercised.

¶44

The prosecution allegation against the revision petitioner was that, he knowing that the gold ornaments were stolen property, sold the gold ornaments.

¶45

The prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 23 and proved Exts P1 to P17 and MOs 1 to 24. PW13 –

¶46

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶47

-:6:-

¶48

the material witness – the Assistant Manager of Manappuram Finance and Bankers, who identified the revision petitioner and testified that, it was the revision petitioner who had pledged the stolen gold ornaments, as per Exts P9 and P10 pawn tickets, with the finance company. The gold ornaments were identified by PW1 – the wife of PW2 (CW1). Thus, the chain of events undoubtedly establishes that the revision petitioner had committed the offence under Section 411 of the IPC.

¶49

The courts below, after appreciating the materials placed on record have concurrently found that the revision petitioner had committed the offence and convicted him. Yet, the Appellate Court on a consideration that the revision petitioner was only 38 years of age at the time of trial, that he was a renal patient and one of his kidneys was removed, took a lenient view in the matter of sentence and reduced it

¶50

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶51

from one year to six months.

¶52

On a consideration of the lower court records

¶53

and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below in holding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting him for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC. Thus, I confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner.

¶54

Sentence:

¶55

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is suffering from renal disease and is under constant medical treatment, including dialysis. He is now aged 50 years and had undergone imprisonment for a period of three months, as an under trial prisoner, during the investigation stage. Hence, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence and the same may be reduced to three months already undergone by the

¶56

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶57

-:8:-

¶58

revision petitioner.

¶59

The learned Public Prosecutor, on

¶60

instructions, submitted that the revision petitioner had undergone imprisonment during the investigation stage for a period of three months.

¶61

Taking into account that the revision petitioner is a renal patient and is undergoing dialysis and also that the incident occurred nearly two decades back, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence, by sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶62

In the result,

¶63

(i) The revision petition is partly allowed;

¶64

(ii) The conviction passed by the courts below is confirmed;

¶65

(iii) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Appellate Court is modified and reduced by sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo

¶66

-:9:-

¶67

Crl.R.P.No.2666/2011

¶68

simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶69

(iv) If the revision petitioner has already not undergone the sentence imposed by this Court, he shall surrender before the Trial Court on 06.11.2023, to undergo the remaining sentence.

¶70

(v) If the revision petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed by this Court, the bail bonds executed by him and his sureties shall stand cancelled.

¶71

(vi) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Trial Court for compliance.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/04.10.23

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

Saidalavi @ Sayed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidalavi @ Sayed 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

Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala

Madana Mohanan Nair Vs M.D.Vincent

P.P.Raghavan Vs Kuniyil Pavithran & State

K.E.Bijumon Vs State of Kerala

V.Kumar Vs M.Robin and Another

L.Latha Vs Manoj Kumar & Another