High Court dismissed criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for theft under IPC Sections 457 and 380. Court upheld trial and appellate findings as supported by evidence, noting PW4's testimony on recovery was unreliable.
Revision petition dismissed, conviction and sentence confirmed.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1460 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2013 IN CRA NO.324 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2011 IN CC NO.384 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO.170/2010 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
MADHAVAN AGED 33 YEARS AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, KARUNANIDHI COLONY, SEELANAICKENPATTI, SALEM, TAMIL NADU - 636 201.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.AJOY SRI.T.M.DOLGOVE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON 10.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
O R D E R
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner concurrently by the trial court and the appellate court. He along with two others were convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
3
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
up hearing the cry of PWs.2 and 3. She switched on the lights. She saw a person in the hall. On seeing her, he walked out along the door of the kitchen. Two more persons were in the house and another outside the house. They escaped. An anklet and a bracelet worn by PW2 and a portion of the gold chain worn by PW3 were snatched away by the assailants. It was with the said allegations the prosecution was initiated.
4
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
appellate court re-appreciated the evidence in detail and found that there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
5
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
and when his claim petition to get back MOs.1 and 2 was dismissed by the trial court, it was a fait accompli that he stated falsehood in court. PWs.1 to 3 could see the assailants in the electric light inside the house and also the light available from the neighbouring houses. During the investigation, they saw the assailants at the police station. According to the learned Public Prosecutor that along with the evidence regarding recovery proved beyond doubt the charge levelled against the accused.
6
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
found missing. PW3 had a tussle with one of the assailants while he tried to snatch her gold chain. He could grab only a portion of the gold chain. It is their version that light from the neighbouring house was available. Immediately, the light in the hall of the house was switched on by PW1 also. In such circumstances, identification of the accused by PWs.1 to 3 cannot be doubted.
7
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
aspects, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court and the appellate court, which led to the conviction of the petitioner and his co-accused.
v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452]; Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123]; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165 ].
8
Crl.R.P.No.1460 of 2017
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court can interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction when the evidence is well supported and not perverse.
Whether the identification of accused and recovery of stolen properties justify the conviction despite the accused's challenge regarding the witness testimony.
Whether the deviation of jeweller witness PW4 from his statement affects the reliability of the recovery evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan NamboodiriReferred¶40
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452] · Who else cites this
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao PhalkeReferred¶40
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123] · Who else cites this
Kishan Rao v. ShankargoudaReferred¶40
Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MADHAVAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
