Kerala High Court
Anand vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
1
2025:KER:35474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2006 IN CRL.A NO.51
OF 2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I),
THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2005 IN
CC NO.87 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,
IDUKKI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED:
ANAND, S/O.SREEDHARAN,
AGED 26 YEARS, CHANNAMAVUMKAL, PAINAVUKARA,,
IDUKKI VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, IDUKKI,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2
2025:KER:35474
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
3
2025:KER:35474
ORDER
This revision petition has been directed against the
judgment in Crl.A No.51 of 2005 dated 05.04.2006 on the file of
the Additional District & Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha
(for short 'the appellate court') as well as the judgment in
C.C.No.87 of 2002 dated 02.02.2005 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki (for short 'the trial court')
2. The 3rd accused is the revision petitioner. He along
with the 1st accused faced trial for the offences punishable under
Sections 454, 380 r/w 34 of IPC. There were altogether three
accused. Since the 2nd accused was found to be juvenile, the case
against him was split up and forwarded to the Juvenile Court,
Thodupuzha.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:-On
20.12.2001 at 12 noon, the accused persons, in furtherance of
their common intention, broke open the lock of the outer door of
the dormitory No.176 of the PWD building situated at Ward
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
No.VI of the Vazhathoppu Panchayath, criminally trespassed
into the room, and committed theft of gold elus (MO1) weighing
2 grams, worth Rs.800/- belonging to PW1 and thereby
committed the offences.
4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the
defence, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked.
MO1 was identified. After trial, the trial court found the 3 rd
accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 454
and 380 of IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under
Sections 454 and 380 of IPC, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentence were
ordered to run concurrently. The 1st accused was found not guilty
and was acquitted of all the offences charged. The 3 rd accused
preferred appeal before the appellate court challenging the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
conviction and sentence. The appellate court confirmed the
conviction but modified and reduced the sentence to simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 454
and 380 of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15
days. This revision petition has been filed challenging the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the
appellate court.
5. I have heard Sri.Shahbaz Aman, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is no eyewitness to the incident and the conviction is based
solely on the recovery of gold elus under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, which has not been legally proved. The learned
counsel further submitted that PW1 did not properly identify
MO1. On the other hand, the learned Prosecutor submitted that
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable
doubt through the evidence of PW1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and
re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in a revision filed
under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1
and also the recovery of MO1, consequent to the confession
statement made by the petitioner, to prove its case and to fix the
culpability on the petitioner. PW1 is the de facto complainant
and the owner of the stolen property. It is not much in dispute
that he was residing in the room where the theft took place. The
evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 would clearly prove that the theft had
taken place in the room where PW1 was residing on 20.12.2001.
Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to prove the theft of MO1
by the petitioner. The recovery of MO1 from the private financial
institution run by PW5 was heavily relied on by the prosecution.
PW10, the investigating officer, deposed that, after the arrest of
the petitioner, on questioning, he stated that he had pledged the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
gold elus (MO1) at a financing institution at Cheruthoni for
Rs.550/- and he would point out the pawnbroker of the financial
institution. He further deposed that thereafter as led by the
petitioner he went to the financial institution of PW5, who
produced the MO1 and he seized it as per Ext.P3 recovery
mahazar. The defence set up by the petitioner is that MO1
belongs to him and that he had pledged MO1 with PW5. Here is
a case where the petitioner as well as the PW1 claimed that they
are the owners of MO1. As stated already, it had come out in
evidence that a theft had taken place at the room where PW1 was
residing on 20.12.2001 and the matter was reported to the police.
PW1 categorically stated that he used MO1 gold elus for 8 years
and he could easily identify it. He also stated that there were
some folding on MO1 by which he could identify it. He clearly
identified MO1 at the court. That apart, it is pertinent to note
that when PW1 was examined, the petitioner had no case that
MO1 did not belong to PW1 but it belonged to him. Such a
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
defence was set up later on, when PW10, the investigating officer
was put in box. PW5 categorically deposed that he was the
Manager of a private finance institution at Cheruthoni by name
Aiswarya Bankers and the 3rd accused came to his institution and
pledged MO1, gold elus and subsequently, after two days, the
police came with the petitioner and he produced the MO1 to the
police. Thus, the recovery of MO1, consequent to the disclosure
statement made by the petitioner while in police custody, stands
proved from the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 10. It is admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Both the appellate court
and the trial court concurrently believed the evidence let in by
the prosecution regarding the recovery. I see no reason to
interfere with the said factual finding.
8. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C was to confer power upon
superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory
jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper
precautions or apparent harshness of treatment. It has been
consistently held by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of
the High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot
embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. In Shlok Bhardwaj
v. Runika Bhardwarj and others [(2015) 2 SCC 721)], the
Supreme Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of
the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.
Since there are concurrent findings of the appellate court and the
trial court, this Court would be circumspect in invoking the
revisional powers under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is only if the decision rendered by the
appellate court and the trial court can be said to be either
perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such
powers.
9. I have carefully gone through the entire records,
evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the appellate court
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2094 OF 2006
2025:KER:35474
and the trial court. I find no impropriety or illegality therein
warranting interference under the exercise of revisional powers
vested with the courts. The sentence imposed by the appellate
court also appears to be reasonable.
There is no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and
accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
