[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Samad vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1086 OF 2016
CRIME NO.67/2006 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRL.A NO.361 OF 2008 OF
DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
IN CC NO.555 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-I, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
ABDUL SAMAD
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O ABDUL ASEEZ, ANAKKALLAN
HOUSE,KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL
SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682031.
ADV MAYA M N PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No.1086 of 2016 2
2026:KER:6657
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN,J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1086 of 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction
and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/accused
No.1 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'IPC').
2. The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.
No. 555 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Manjeri. He stood trial before that court, along with
another accused for committing the offences punishable under
Sections 379, 201, and 411 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the first accused,
along with a juvenile, had on 05.04.2006, between 5:00 pm and
10:00 pm, in furtherance of their common intention, committed
theft of a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-10-F-9184
belonging to PW1, from the road margin near Karuvarakundu
Village Office. It is alleged that thereafter, the first accused and
the juvenile destroyed evidence by removing the number plate
and placing another fake number plate. It is further alleged that
2026:KER:6657
the second accused received the motor cycle from the first
accused and the juvenile, fully knowing that it is a stolen property
for dismantling it.
4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the first
accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 379 of the
IPC and convicted him thereunder. But it also found the first
accused not guilty of committing an offence under Section 201 of
the IPC and acquitted him thereunder. It sentenced the first
accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months under Section 379 of the IPC.
5. The first accused carried the matter in appeal by
filing Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2008 before the Sessions Court,
Manjeri. The said court, by judgment dated 17.03.2016, dismissed
the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and 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 first accused. He
submitted that there is no credible evidence to prove the identity
2026:KER:6657
of the motor cycle or to show that the parts of the motor cycle
allegedly recovered belonged to PW1. He also submitted that if in
any case, the conviction is upheld, considering the fact that the
revision petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of the offence
and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, leniency may
be shown and he may be released on probation.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor,
supported the impugned judgments, contended that there are no
grounds to interfere with the same.
9. The evidence of PW1, the owner of the motor
cycle bearing Registration No. KL-10-F-9184, goes to show that his
motor cycle was stolen on 05.04.2006, while he had parked it in
front of Punnakkad Post Office. At 10:00 p.m. on that day, he
found that his motor cycle was missing and made enquiries. Later,
on 09.04.2006, he filed Ext.P1 complaint with the police. His
evidence also reveals that on 10.04.2006, the police had asked
him to come to a hawker shop near Melattur Railway Gate, and he
had gone there. There, he found his motor cycle being dismantled.
He identified his dismantled motor cycle by comparing the chassis
number and engine number with the R.C. Book. He also identified
the dismantled portions in court, which was marked as MO1 series
and the accused in the dock.
2026:KER:6657
10. The evidence of PW6, the Investigating Officer,
goes to show that on receiving information, he had gone to the
hawker shop at about 04:40 p.m. and had seen both the accused
with the motor cycle. Thereafter, he called PW1, who came and
identified the motor cycle as his and he arrested both the accused
and seized the articles, by preparing Ext. P5 seizure mahazar. It is
very pertinent to note that the evidence of PW3, an independent
witness, also supports the prosecution case in material and shows
that the second accused was running the hawker shop near
Melattur Railway Gate. He also stated that he had witnessed the
police seizing the motor cycle parts from the shop of the 2 nd
accused, and had signed in Ext. P5 seizure mahazar at that time.
He further stated that the first accused was also present along
with the second accused, and he identified him in the dock. Both
the trial court and the appellate court have relied on the evidence
of these material witnesses which are credible and cogent in order
to reach a conclusion against the accused and I do not find any
error or illegality in it.
11. Now, the question to be considered is regarding
the sentence. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner submitted that at the time of commission of the
offence, the revision petitioner was only 20 years old and that he
2026:KER:6657
had committed the wrong by getting involved with wrong
company. He also submitted that the revision petitioner is now
living peacefully with his family and has two young children to
support. The report of the District Probation Officer, Malappuram,
dated 10.11.2025, which was called for by this Court, goes to
show that the revision petitioner has no criminal antecedents and
he is now living peacefully with his family. Further, the Probation
Officer has also recommended releasing the revision petitioner on
probation. Hence, considering all the afore facts, I am of the view
that there is no impediment in releasing the revision petitioner on
probation.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part as follows:
1. The conviction and sentence rendered against the revision
petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 379 of IPC in C.C.No.555
of 2006 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri,
and as upheld in Crl. A. No. 361/2008 by the Sessions Court,
Manjeri, are confirmed.
2. The revision petitioner/accused No.1 is released on probation
for a period of one year, on condition that he executes a bond
for Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety, for the like sum, to
appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon.
2026:KER:6657
3. During this period, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 shall be
under the supervision of the District Probation Officer,
Malappuram, and shall report before him on every third
Saturday, of alternate months.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
mea
