Kerala High Court

Niyas vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025

CRL.R.P.No.457 of 2016

                                    1


                                                        2025:KER:43390

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

   TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                     CRL.REV.PET NO. 457 OF 2016

 CRIME NO.129/2011 OF Vadanappally Police Station, Thrissur

       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2015 IN Crl.A NO.227

OF 2012 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, THRISSUR

ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2012 IN CC NO.969 OF

2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHAVAKKAD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
          NIYAS, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 37 YEARS, PULIKKAL
          HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU VILLAGE, PALAPETTY WEST DESOM,
          MALAPPURAM.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.A.CHACKO
             SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
             SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
          OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
          SMT. MAYA . M .N (GP)
      THIS    CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING    BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.R.P.No.457 of 2016

                                      2


                                                        2025:KER:43390



                 P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
              ---------------------
                   CRL.R.P.No.457 of 2016
           ---------------------------
             Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025

                                 ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the accused in

C.C.No.969/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. He stood trial for committing

an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC before that

court and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The

revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence by

preferring Criminal Appeal No.227/2012 before the

Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, and the same ended

in dismissal.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 18.02.2011 at

about 11.00 am, while PW1 was walking through a road near

Ayriramkanni Temple, the accused came in a motorcycle

bearing registration No.KL 46 D 8306 and snatched the gold

2025:KER:43390

chain worn by her weighing 6 sovereigns, after causing hurt.

3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution,

PWs1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 documents and

MO1 were marked. When examined under Section 313 of

Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in evidence. No evidence was adduced

from the side of the accused. The trial court, on an

appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused

guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 392

IPC. As stated earlier, the appeal preferred by the accused

challenging the conviction and sentence as Crl.Appeal

No.227/2012 ended in dismissal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

assails the impugned conviction and sentence by contending

that both the courts did not properly appreciate the evidence

2025:KER:43390

on record. He argued that the accused has not been

identified by the witnesses and no test identification parade

has also been conducted by the prosecution. He further

submitted that the prosecution has also not proved the

recovery of MO1 as required by law and the accused has

been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed that

this revision petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor

supported the impugned judgments and contended that

there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent

findings of the fact rendered by these courts. She argued

that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 proves the incident

and the involvement of the accused and the evidence of PW8

and PW5 would prove the recovery of the gold chain effected

at the instance of the accused. Hence, she prayed that this

revision petition may be dismissed.

7. On considering the materials on record, it is to be

seen that the prosecution is heavily relying upon the

2025:KER:43390

evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 to prove the incident and

the identity of the accused. It is to be seen that the evidence

of PW1 and PW2 supplements and compliments each other

with regard to the manner in which the incident took place.

Their evidence is categoric and shows that while PW1 was

walking through the road, the accused had came in a

motorcycle and thereafter, had snatched the gold chain worn

by her. The evidence of PW4, an independent witness, who

had seen the incident, also corroborates the afore evidence.

Further, the evidence of all these witnesses show that they

have positively identified the accused in the dock. Both the

trial court and the appellate court has not disbelieved the

evidence of the afore witnesses regarding these facts and I

also could not find any reason not to act upon their evidence.

8. Coming to the alleged recovery effected on the

basis of the confession statement given by the accused, it is

to be seen that PW8, the Investigating Officer, has not

specifically deposed the exact information received from the

2025:KER:43390

accused, which had led to the recovery. A perusal of the

testimony of PW8 would show that an omnibus inculpatory

statement / confession allegedly given by the accused has

been deposed by him and the exact information which led to

the discovery is not at all discernable. It is a settled law as

held by the apex court in Bodh Raj vs. State of Jammu

and Kashmir (2002 (8) SCC 45), that the exact

information given by the accused, which lead to the

recovery, must be proved by the prosecution. The

information given should be recorded and proved and if not

recorded, the exact information must be adduced through

evidence. Merely because the alleged information is recorded

in the mahazar and marked in court as Ext.P6(a), the same

will not amount to proof. The Investigating Officer has to

depose the exact information he received from the accused

while in custody which led to the recovery. If so, in the

absence of the same, I am of the view that the recovery of

MO1 allegedly effected cannot be relied upon.

2025:KER:43390

9. Be that as it may, it is to be seen that the

prosecution has proved through PW5 coupled with Ext.P3

that it is the accused who has pledged MO1 with the financial

institution and has obtained Rs.1,04,000/- on 18.02.2011,

immediately after the incident. Ext.P3 Pawn ticket also

contains the photograph of the accused which was affixed at

the time when MO1 was pledged. It is also to be taken note

that the evidence of PW5 corroborates with the evidence of

PW8 on this aspect. If so, I am of the view that, the afore

subsequent conduct of the accused which is relevant under

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act can be relied upon and

the same lends considerable support to the prosecution case

[See Anees vs. State Government of NCT (2024 SCC

OnLine 757) and Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi

Administration) ((1979) 3 SCC 90)]

10. In the light of the afore discussions, I am of the

view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that it is the accused who has snatched the gold chain

2025:KER:43390

worn by PW1 on 18.02.2011 as alleged by the prosecution

and hence, I find no reason to disturb the conclusion of guilt

reached by both the trial and the appellate court.

11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is now

aged about 48 and is now living with his family without

getting involved in any issues. He also submitted that the

revision petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for

more than one year and considering the fact that he has

reformed, some leniency may be shown in the sentence. On

the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the revision petitioner being a habitual offender, no leniency

may be shown.

12. Considering the afore submissions and materials

on record especially the fact that the revision petitioner is

now aged about 48 and is having a family to support, the

fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2011, the

nature and gravity of the offence and the facts and

2025:KER:43390

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the

sentence imposed on the revision petitioner / accused under

Section 392 IPC can be modified and reduced to one of

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as

follows:-

I) The conviction of the revision petitioner/ accused under Section 392 IPC as per the judgment in C.C.No. 969/2011 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakad and as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.227/2012 by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, is confirmed.