Kerala High Court
Niyas vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 598 OF 2016
CRIME NO.431/2011 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2015 IN CRL.A NO.225
OF 2012 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2012 IN CC NO.775 OF 2011
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
NIYAS
AGED 37 YEARS
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/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.598 of 2016
2
2025:KER:70710
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.598 of 2016
.....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 392
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.775
of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Chavakkad. He stood trial before that court for committing an
offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.05.2011 at about
10:45 a.m., while PW1 was walking through Chullipadi-Nethaji
Nagar Road, the accused came in a motorcycle bearing registration
No. KL 46 D 8306 and snatched the two gold chains worn by her,
weighing 48.2 and 24 grams, respectively, worth Rs.1,50,000/-, after
causing injury and putting her in fear of death.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the
evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him
under Section 392 of IPC. It sentenced the accused to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 392
2025:KER:70710
IPC.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.App.No.225 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Thrissur. The said court by judgment dated 16.09.2015 dismissed
the appeal.
6. Heard Sri. Shahbas Aman C.M., the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri. Jayakrishnan V., the learned Public
Prosecutor . Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to
appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a
wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that the
identification of the accused by PW1 is not believable and no test
identification parade has been conducted. He also submitted that, in
case this court finds the accused guilty, considering the young age
of the petitioner and the fact that he is now living peacefully with
his family, the sentence imposed may be reduced.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the
impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to
interfere with the same.
9. The materials on record show that PW1, the victim, has
given evidence, vividly describing the events which took place on
2025:KER:70710
the fateful day. Her evidence shows that while she was walking
along the road with her child, the accused came from behind on a
motorcycle, stopped the bike on her right side, and snatched the
two gold chains worn by her. In the course of events, the accused
also caused hurt in her neck. She identified the accused positively in
the dock as the person who had snatched the chains from her.
Immediately after the incident she also lodged Ext.P1 FIS with the
police, and it is relevant to note that, a portion of the registration
number of the vehicle used by the accused was also stated in it. It is
to be seen that even though PW1 has been cross-examined in
extenso, nothing material has been brought out to disbelieve her
version.
10. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW5 would go to show
that on detaining the accused he had seized Rs.71,500/- along with
Ext.P13 a customer advice slip of Manappuram Benefit Funds Ltd.
from him, as per Ext.P12 mahazar. Thereafter, on the basis of
Ext.P6(a) information provided by the accused, he had accompanied
him to the financial institution and has recovered one of the chains,
which the accused identified through Ext.P2 photograph as that of
hers. Exts. P4 promissory note executed by the accused and P5
pawn ticket issued were also seized as per Ext.P6 mahazar from the
institution. Most importantly PW3 who is the Manager of the
2025:KER:70710
financial institution, also positively identified the accused as the
person who has pledged the chain with the institution and his
evidence thus corroborates with the evidence of PW5.
11. It is to be seen that even though the accused has raised a
contention regarding the identification made by PW1, I am of the
considered view that there is no merit in it. First of all, as stated
earlier, it is to be seen that PW1 was even able to identify a portion
of the registration number of the vehicle in which the accused had
come and has reported the same to the police in her Ext. P1 FIS.
Secondly, it is to be seen from the evidence of PW1 that the incident
has taken place in close quarters, and she had ample time and
opportunity to see the face of the accused. Further, nothing has
been brought out in the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve her
on this aspect.
12. In the light of the afore discussions, the only conclusion
which can be reached is that there is no illegality or error in the
trial court and appellate court appreciating the evidence on record
and in arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused. Now the
question to be considered is regarding the sentence. Considering
the fact that the revision petitioner is now aged about 48, the fact
that he is having a family to support, the fact that the incident had
taken place in the year 2011, the nature and the gravity of the
2025:KER:70710
offence and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
view that the sentence imposed on the accused 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 in C.C.No. 775/2011 by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad and as confirmed in
Criminal Appeal No.225/2012 by the Additional Sessions
Court-III, Thrissur, is confirmed.
ii) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/
accused is modified and reduced to one of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 392
of IPC.
iii) Set off is also granted.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
