[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ibi Ibrahim vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2025:KER:95633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2020 IN Crl.A NO.13
OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT- III,
MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2016 IN
CC NO.629 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KAYAMKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
IBI IBRAHIM
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.SAJI, IBI MANZIL, ADICHENELLOOR, KOTTIYAM P.O,
KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT EROSS, THAZHUTHALA,
KOTTIYAM.P.O, KOLLAM., PIN - 691571
ADV.AKSHARA S., AMICUS CURIAE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROCSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 11.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
2
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
conviction and sentence passed under Section 411 of IPC.
2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in C.C. No.629/2010 on
the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam
(for short 'the trial court'). She along with accused Nos.1 and 2
faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 411 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
3. PW1 is the owner of Arabian Jewellery functioning at the
Kayamkulam Municipality. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were salesmen of
the said jewellery. The prosecution case in short is that accused
Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention to commit
theft, committed theft of 918.900 grams of gold ornaments from the
jewellery of PW1 between 03.03.2010 to 10.03.2010 and entrusted
the same to accused No.3, who received the same knowing it to be
stolen articles.
4. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, PWs
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
1 to 13 were examined; Exts.P1 to P16 were marked and MO1 to
MO23 were identified. On the side of the defence, Ext.D1 was
marked.
5. After trial, the trial court found accused No.1 guilty under
Section 381 of IPC and accused No.3 guilty under Section 411 of
IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. Accused No.2
was acquitted. Accused No.3 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
three months. Accused No.3 challenged the conviction and sentence
of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Mavelikara (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.A. No.13/2016.
The appellate court confirmed the conviction, modified the
sentence and accused No.3 was released on probation. This revision
petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court
as well as the appellate court.
6. The revision petitioner was appearing in person. However,
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
she remained absent on the last posting date. Hence, Adv.Akshara
S. was appointed as Amicus Curiae. I have heard Adv.Akshara S.,
the learned Amicus Curiae and Adv.E.C. Bineesh, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor. I place on record my appreciation for the
able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
7. There is no direct evidence to prove the theft. The
prosecution mainly relied on the circumstantial evidence as well as
the recovery of gold ornaments pursuant to the disclosure statement
made by the petitioner. PW1 is the owner, PW2 is the Manager and
PW3 is the Supervisor of the Jewellery. The gold ornaments
allegedly stolen away from the jewellery of PW1 which were
recovered consequent to the disclosure statement of accused No.1
and the petitioner from her house and from Vignesh Jewellery were
identified as MO1 to MO9. It is the case of the prosecution that
after committing theft of MO1 to MO8 from the jewellery of PW1,
accused No.1 with the help of the petitioner replaced them with
rolled gold. Those rolled gold items were marked as MO10 to
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
MO23.
8. PW13 is the investigating officer. His evidence would
show that on the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused
No.1 while in police custody, he recovered MO1 to MO8 gold
ornaments from the residence of the petitioner. His evidence would
further show that on the basis of the disclosure statement made by
the petitioner, MO9 gold ornament was recovered from Vignesh
Jewellery. PW2 and PW9 are witnesses to MO1 to MO8 recovery.
Ext.P2 is the recovery mahazar. Ext.P2(a) is the relevant portion of
the confession statement of accused No.1. PW10 is a witness to the
recovery of MO9 gold ornament. Ext.P6 is the recovery mahazar
and Ext.P6(a) is the relevant portion of the confession statement.
PW12 is the proprietor of the Vignesh Jewellery. He identified the
petitioner and he deposed that two-three days prior to 12.04.2010,
the petitioner sold MO9 gold chain and received Rs.91,000/-. He
identified the petitioner as well as MO9. Thus, the recovery of
MO1 to MO9 stands clearly proved. It would further prove that the
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
petitioner was in possession of MO1 to MO9 soon after the theft.
9. It is true, as rightly argued by the learned Amicus
Curiae, that only some of the gold ornaments out of MO1 to MO9,
were bearing the label of PW1's jewellery. But that alone is not
sufficient to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to
prove the recovery. There is evidence to show that the petitioner
was in possession of at least three gold ornaments stolen away from
the shop of PW1. The petitioner did not offer any explanation for
the possession of those gold ornaments. That apart, the evidence of
PW6 who is running a fancy shop at Vattaparambil Junction would
show that MO10 to MO13, MO15, MO16, MO18 and MO21 rolled
gold ornaments were purchased by the petitioner from her shop.
Those are the gold ornaments which were replaced at PW1's
jewellery shop.
10. The trial court as well as the appellate court on
appreciation of evidence found that the prosecution has proved the
offence under Section 411 of the IPC against the petitioner beyond
2025:KER:95633
CRL.REV.PET NO. 159 OF 2022
reasonable doubt. I see no reason to take a different view. The
appellate court was pleased to release the petitioner on probation.
There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
NP/KP
