Kerala High Court
Krishnan @ Vasanan vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2024
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. 569 OF 2017
AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C. NO.143 OF
2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ALAPUZHA BY JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2011 AND THE JUDGMENT IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.110 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF
SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 21.12.2016
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
KRISHNAN @ VASANAN
S/O.MUNISWAMI, RAILWAY COLONY, MADHURA,
TAMIL NADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
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 569 of 2017
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.569 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
ORDER
The 1st accused in C.C.No.143 of 2010 on the files of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha is the revision
petitioner. He along with two others was convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 457 and 394 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal
No.110 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha which
ended in dismissal. In this revision under Section 397 read
with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
petitioner challenges correctness, legality and propriety of
the said judgments.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a
final report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha
North Police Station. The allegations were that the accused
in furtherance of their common intention criminally
Crl.R.P 569 of 2017
trespassed into the house of PW1 by breaking open the
kitchen door of that house, committed theft of gold
ornaments and in that course, inflicted grievous hurt to PW1.
The trial court after considering the evidence tendered by
the prosecution, both oral and documentary, found all the
accused guilty of the aforementioned offences. The appellate
court reappreciated the evidence in the wake of the
contentions urged by the petitioner and held that there was
no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the only evidence the courts below placed
reliance on to convict the accused is their identifications by
PWs 1, 2 and 6. Admittedly those witnesses saw the
assailants only at the time of the theft which was during
night hours and therefore their identification of the accused
before the court for the first time is not creditworthy.
Especially when there was no test identification parade,
conviction based on that sole evidence is palpably wrong.
The stolen articles were not recovered and evidence
concerning recovery of the crowbar is not duly proved.
Crl.R.P 569 of 2017
Accordingly, the learned counsel would urge that the
conviction of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said
contentions. It is submitted that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4
and 6 remain unassailable. As they had enough time and
there was sufficient light to identify the assailants, their
identification of the accused before the court can be acted
upon. When the act of theft and identity of the thieves are
thus proved, the findings of guilt by the courts below cannot
be interfered with. The learned Public Prosecutor accordingly
seeks to dismiss the revision petition.
6. The version of PW1 is that on hearing a sound
from the room of PW6, the mother, she woke up and
switched on the lights. PW2 also came. They saw the
accused inside the house. Since PW1 resisted she was fisted
at the face by the 2nd accused. That caused to loosen her
three teeth. It is her version as well as that of PWs 2 and 6
that their gold ornaments were snatched away by the
accused persons forcibly. The first accused snatched of the
chain of PW6. The 2nd accused took away the gold chain
Crl.R.P 569 of 2017
worn by PW1. The question is whether their version in that
regard essentially concerning identification of the accused in
court can be believed in the absence of any recovery of the
stolen articles.
7. The incident took place in the night intervening
04.11.2009 and 05.11.2009. PW1 immediately went to the
police station and lodged Ext.P1 FI statement. PW8 had
recorded the statement and registered the crime. Although
PW9 arrested all the accused who were in judicial custody
already in connection with another case, no recovery of the
stolen articles could be effected. On the basis of the
information given by the 2nd accused PW9 had recovered an
iron rod which was allegedly used to break open the kitchen
door of PW1's house. No further evidence is available in
order to show that the said iron bar was used by the accused
to break open the door. When PWs 1, 2 and 6 categorically
deposed about forcing open of the door and the accused
gained entry inside, their house breaking for the purpose of
committing theft can be found established.
8. There was enough light at the time of occurrence.
Crl.R.P 569 of 2017
Electric light inside the house was on. PW1 was fisted at
causing injuries. By putting PWs 1 and 2 under threat the
theft was committed. The gold chain owned by PW6 mother
who was in another room was also snatched of in the seeing
of PW1. When there was enough light to see and identify the
features of the assailants in such an alarming and disgusting
circumstance, identification of the accused by PWs 1, 2 and
6 before the court can be relied on even in the absence of a
test identification parade. The courts below considered all
such evidence in detail and arrived at the findings leading to
the conviction of all the accused.
9. The power of revision under Section 401 of the
Code is not wide and exhaustive. The High Court in the
exercise of the powers of revision cannot re-appreciate
evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its
consideration of the evidence is confined to find out the
legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned
before it. When the findings rendered by the courts below
are well supported by evidence on record and cannot be said
to be perverse in any way, the High Court is not expected to
Crl.R.P 569 of 2017
interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below
while exercising revisional jurisdiction. [See: State of
Kerala 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]. Considered in
the wake of the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid
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
