Kerala High Court
Ayoob vs State Of Kerala on 6 November, 2024
Crl. R.P 85/2017
1
2024:KER:82581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 85 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2016 IN CRA NO.268 OF
2015 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 08.10.2015 IN CC NO.125 OF 2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AYOOB
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI,
VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELAKKAM,
KARUVAMBARAM P O, MANJERI.
BY ADV SRI.C.DINESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI.
BY SMT.MAYA.M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. R.P 85/2017
2
2024:KER:82581
ORDER
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024
This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the appellant in
Crl. Appeal No.268 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Manjeri against the judgment dated 9.12.2016 confirming the conviction
rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri in C.C No.125 of 2014
under Section 392 r/w 34 IPC and reducing the sentence to Rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The prosecution case is that on 26.5.2011, at about 7.30 p.m. when
the defacto complainant was walking along the Manjeri-Nilamboor Highway
towards his quarters, accused persons 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common
intention to rob him, pushed him to the side of the road to a depth of about 8
meters, tied his hands and legs using a piece of cloth, robbed his purse kept in
his pocket, containing Rs.4,100/-, ATM card and identity card, after putting
him in fear of death.
3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to
6 and Exhibits P1 to P10. MOs1 and 2 were identified. No evidence was
adduced by the accused persons. After evaluating the evidence on record, the
2024:KER:82581
trial court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each.
4. The 1st accused preferred Crl.A.268 of 2015 and 2 nd accused
preferred Crl.A.28 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court Manjeri.
The appellate Court while sustaining the conviction, reduced the punishment
to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each
as per the common judgment dated 9.12.2016. Dissatisfied with the above
judgment of the Appellate Court, the 1st accused preferred this revision raising
various grounds.
5. Now, the point that arise for consideration is the following:
Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court against the revision petitioner, as modified by the
Appellate Court is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the
grounds raised in the revision petition?
6. Heard Adv. Sri. C Dinesh, who appeared on behalf of the revision
petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that
in the FI statement, there was no case for the defecto complainant that he has
lost the identity card. However, the revision petitioner was ultimately found
2024:KER:82581
guilty mainly on the basis of the recovery of the identity card of defacto
complainant from the residence of the revision petitioner. It was argued that
recovery of MO2 identity card and MO1 purse relied upon by the prosecution
are fake and liable to be rejected. Further according to him, there was no
proper identification of the revision petitioner by the defacto complainant
before the court. Absence of medical evidence was also relied upon by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In the light of the above grounds,
he prayed for acquittal of the revision petitioner. On the other hand, the
learned Public Prosecutor would argue that in this case, there is sufficient
evidence to prove the charge against the revision petitioner. Therefore, she
prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
8. As argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in
Exhibit P1 FI Statement, the defacto complainant, namely PW1 had no case
that the assailants stolen his identity card also, along with his purse
containing money. The FI statement given to the police on 26.5.2011, is to
the effect that while he was working as Cashier in KSEB, Manjeri North
Office, his purse containing Rs.4,100/-, ATM card of SBT and a receipt in
respect of pledging of gold, was robbed by two identifiable persons.
2024:KER:82581
According to him, the assailants torn the dhoti worn by him, tied his hands
and mouth and exhorted to kill him. On hearing the noise, some persons who
came at the roadside asked about what is going on there. On hearing the
same, the assailants flew towards the forest. Some persons came there and
untied his hands. Because of the fall to a depth of about 15 feet, he sustained
injuries and hence he first went to the District Hospital and thereafter went to
the police station and given Exhibit P1 FI statement.
9. On a perusal of the FI statement itself, it can be seen that as per the
above first information given to the police, in the purse robbed by the
assailants, there was only cash, an ATM card of SBT and receipt for pledge of
gold. The prosecution could not recover the above cash, ATM card or receipt
in respect of pledge of gold ornaments. What are recovered are only MO1
purse and MO2, ID Card.
10. When the defacto complainant was examined as PW1, he deposed
that he along with the assailants alighted from the same bus and thereafter
walked along the road in the same direction. At first they told him that their
vehicle got punctured and asked him whether there is any workshop known to
him. Thereafter, they were moving towards his quarters and on the way, the
2024:KER:82581
assailants pushed him down and robbed him.
11. According to PW1, at Manjery Police Station, the police showed
him some photographs, in which photographs of accused persons were not
there. Thereafter at Nilamboor Police Station, some more photographs were
shown in which he identified the photographs of the accused persons.
However, PW6, the investigating officer would swear that no such statement
was given by PW1 to the effect that he has seen the photographs of accused
persons at Nilamboor Police Station. Though PW1 claimed that he had given
statement to the effect that he lost his ID card in the incident, no such
statement was given. According to PW1, in the incident, he sustained injury
to his leg, as his leg came into contact with a broken glass and in that respect,
he obtained treatment from the District Hospital. Those records were not
handed over to the investigating officer. The investigating Officer also has
not seized those records and produced before the Court.
12. When PW6, the investigating officer was examined, he deposed
that on the basis of the information furnished by the 1 st accused, he recovered
MOs1 and 2 from the residence of the accused. The alleged recovery was on
12.1.2014, while the alleged incident was on 26.5.2011. On seeing MO1
2024:KER:82581
purse PW1 himself admitted that the said purse is in a damaged condition. As
argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, recovery of the
stolen purse from the residence of the accused after about 2 1/2 years is a
suspicious one. In order to prove the recovery, the prosecution has not
examined any witness. The confession statement allegedly given by the
revision petitioner was not narrated or disclosed by the investigating officer,
when he was examined before the court. Therefore, in the deposition of
PW6, the alleged disclosure statement does not find a place.
13. Exhibit P7 is the seizure mahazar, as per which MOs 1 and 2 were
recovered from the residence of the revision petitioner. During the cross
examination, PW6 admitted that the disclosure statement give by the revision
petitioner was recorded only in Exhibit P7 and not recorded anywhere else. If
so, the disclosure statement of the revision petitioner was recorded while
preparing Exhibit P7, at the residence of the revision petitioner, which is quite
unbelievable. Absence about loss of ID Card in Exhibit P1 FI Statement as
well as in the previous statement of PW1 and its subsequent recovery after
21/2 years as per Exhibit P7 Mahazar creates more suspicion in the
genuineness of the recovery effected by PW6.
2024:KER:82581
14. With respect to the identity of the accused persons the evidence
given by PW1 is to the following effect:
"പ ത കള അറ യ . അത ള ര ള ഇന ഹ ജര ള ."
In this context, it is to be noted that even according to PW1, the police has
shown to him the photograph of only the 1st accused and there was no
occasion for him to identify the 2nd accused before the trial court. From the
above evidence given by PW1 before the court, it is not clear as to whether he
identified A1 or A2. Though during the cross examination, at one stage, he
deposed as above, at another stage he stated that he had seen the photographs
of both the accused persons at the police station. PW1 has no case that
revision petitioner was previously known to him. In this case, no TI parade
was also conducted. PW6 has no case that the photographs of the revision
petitioner was shown to PW1 before 12.1.2014. Therefore, the contradictory
versions of PW1 that he had seen the photograph of 1 st accused alone at the
police station and the other version that he had seen the photographs of both
the accused at the police station, could not be believed. In the above
circumstances, from the available evidence, it is to be held that PW1 has not
properly identified the revision petitioner before the court.
2024:KER:82581
15. As I have already noted above, the recovery of MO1 and 2 is
highly suspicious. There was no proper identification of the revision
petitioner before the court. Non-production of the available medical evidence
also casts suspicion on the veracity of the prosecution case. In the light of
the above circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has not
succeeded in proving the charge against the revision petitioner, beyond
reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled to get an order of acquittal. Point
answered accordingly.
16. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned
judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri in C.C No.125 of
2014 as modified by the Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.268 of 2015 as
against the revision petitioner is set aside. The revision petitioner is found
not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 386 (b)(i) Cr.P.C. He is set at
liberty cancelling his bail bond.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
