Criminal Revision Petition No. 1215 of 2009 · Kerala High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Conviction andsentence of petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the chargesfound against him
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 380, 457
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Though it is stated that mahazar was prepared for seizureof MOs.1 to 8 from the scene of occurrence, that mahazar is notexhibited in evidence. What is marked through PW2 is the mahazar forseizure of certain items from the shop of one Ahammed allegedly onthe…
Judgment
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J----------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1215 of 2009---------------------------------------Dated this 25th day of August 2009ORDERThis revision is in challenge of judgment of learned AdditionalSessions Judge, North Paravur in criminal appeal No.764 of 2004confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner in C.C.No.374 of 1999of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, North Paravur. Petitioner along with accused No.1 faced trial for offences punishableunder sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code. Case is that on25-04-1999 at about 9.30p.m petitioner and accused No.1 infurtherance of their common intention trespassed into the treatmentyard of KSEB office at Kadungallur and committed theft of MOs.1 to 8. Learned magistrate found petitioner and accused No.1 guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for variousperiods. Their appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, NorthParavur. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that there isno evidence to show that petitioner is involved in the alleged incident.
PW1, engineer of State Electricity Board has givenevidence regarding the theft and identified MOs.1 to 8 as the stolenarticles. PW2 did not support the prosecution. PW3 claimed that hesaw petitioner and accused No.1 being arrested by Sub Inspector witha sack bundle which contained articles belonging to the electricity Crl.R.P.No.1215 of 20092board. PWs.4 to 6 are police officials. According to the prosecutionCW10, the Sub Inspector while on patrol duty with PWs.4 to 6 foundpetitioner and accused No.1 with the sack bundle and on seeing thepolice party, petitioner and accused No.1 left the sack bundle and tookto their heels. They were chased and arrested. PWs.4 to 6 gaveevidence in that line. CW10, detecting officer was not available forexamination.
Operative part
Though it is stated that mahazar was prepared for seizureof MOs.1 to 8 from the scene of occurrence, that mahazar is notexhibited in evidence. What is marked through PW2 is the mahazar forseizure of certain items from the shop of one Ahammed allegedly onthe information given by accused No.1. Though, in the statement ofaccused No.1 which led to the alleged discovery there is reference tothe involvement of petitioner also, that by itself is not sufficient towarrant conviction of petitioner. On going through the evidence ofPWs.4 to 6 it is not clear which of the accused, whether it waspetitioner or accused No.1 who was carrying sack bundle. Inotherwords there is no reliable evidence to show that petitioner wascarrying the sack bundle to hold that he was in possession of stolenarticles. As against the version of PWs.4 to 6 that petitioner andaccused No.1 ran away leaving the sack bundle, and they were chasedand arrested, what PW2 stated is that petitioner and accused No.1 with Crl.R.P.No.1215 of 20093the sack bundle were arrested which is found to be not correct also. Inthe circumstances conviction and sentence of petitioner cannot besustained and he is entitled to an acquittal. Resultantly this revision petition succeeds. Conviction andsentence of petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the chargesfound against him.THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGESbna/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Conviction andsentence of petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the chargesfound against him
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 380, 457.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Aug 2009. The bench was THOMAS P JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.