P.G. Ajithkumar, J. dismissed a criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence for house trespass and theft, holding that the lower courts findings were well supported evidence and not perverse.
The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the petitioner accused under Sections 457 and 392 of IPC.
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. 1461 OF 2017
FROM JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.342 OF 2012 BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKKARA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.2011 IN C.C NO.454 OF 2010 BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KAYAMKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
MADHAVAN
AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.GOPALAN, KARUNANIDHI COLONY, SEELANAICKENPATTI,SALEM TAMIL NADU-636201.
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-682031.
SMT.PUSHPALATHA M K – SR. GP
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.1461 of 2017
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
O R D E R
This is a revision petition filed under Section 397 read
with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner concurrently by the trial court and the appellate court. He along with two others was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 457 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
3
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
theft of gold ornaments worn by PWs 1 and 2, money and mobile phone kept in the almirah. The accused had threatened PWs 1 and 2 in order for their committing the theft. One of the mobile phones stolen from the house was received by the 4th accused knowing it to be stolen. With those allegations the final report was filed and the accused were tried on a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 392 and 411 read with 34 of the IPC.
4
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
the kitchen door. PW1 woke up hearing the cry of PW2. She switched on the light and she saw 3 persons inside the house. It is her further version that the assailants threatened her and her daughter to handover the ornaments. They took away the gold ornaments, mobile phones and cash kept in the almirah and handbag. Earrings of PW2 was forcibly removed. After threatening PWs 1 and 2 that they planted bombs in the house, the accused left. Similar are versions of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the incident. Along with that Ext.P1 FI statement was placed reliance on by the courts below to hold that there occurred house breaking and theft inside the house of PW1.
5
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
house and forcible opening of the kitchen door are able to be understood. From the said evidence and circumstances, the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the stealing of gold ornaments, mobile phones and cash get sufficient corroboration and hence the same can be believed. The question remains is as to who committed the theft.
6
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
that police threatened him that unless he produced the gold ornaments, he would be implicated in the case, and therefore he purchased, through his friend, gold ornaments and gave to police. Therefore the evidence of PW4 is not available to the aid of the prosecution to prove the recovery.
7
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
removal of her ornaments as also the threat to PWs 1 and 2 by the accused were deposed by these witnesses. I find no reason to disbelieve that version. In the circumstances, I find no reason to unsettle the concurrent findings by the courts below.
8
Crl.R.P.No.1461 of 2017
decisions, the findings of the courts below leading to the conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse, irregular or improper. Hence, the said concurrent findings of the courts below are not liable to be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of the powers of revision under Section 401 of the Code.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
PV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of guilty by lower courts in a theft and house-trespass case is perverse or irrational warranting revisional intervention under Section 397 CrPC 1973.
Whether the high court can reappreciate evidence or is limited to finding legality and propriety under Section 401 CrPC 1973.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Puttumana Illath Jathavedan NamboodiriReferred¶45
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
Sanjaysinh Ramrao ChavanReferred¶45
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Kishan RaoReferred¶45
Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 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
