[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Harilal vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026
2026:KER:28460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 18 OF 2017
CRIME NO.244/2011 OF Thampanoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2016 IN Crl.A NO.356 OF 2015 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2015 IN CC NO.253 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
HARILAL, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
PUTHUVAL PUTHENVEEDU,
TC. 43/829 KAMLESWRAM WARD,
MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV. ALEX M. THOMBRA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :2:
2026:KER:28460
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the revision
petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, challenging the conviction and sentence
passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 379
of the Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -
III, Thiruvananthapuram as per the judgment dated 16.11.2015
in C.C No.253/2011, which was confirmed in appeal by the
Additional Sessions Court- II, Thiruvananthapuram, as per
judgment dated 17.10.2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 356/2015. The
revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2011 at about 8:30
p.m., at the KSRTC Bus Stand, Thampanoor, while PW1 was
boarding a bus, the accused committed theft of a purse containing
Rs. 200/- from the back pocket of PW1, and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and
perused the records.
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :3:
2026:KER:28460
4. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and
marked Exts. P1 to P5. MO1 to MO4 were exhibited and identified.
PW1 is the de facto complainant whose purse was allegedly
stolen. PW2 to PW4 were independent witnesses cited by the
prosecution to prove the occurrence. However, they did not
support the prosecution case. PW5 is a Home Guard attached to
Thampanoor Police Station, who deposed that he saw PW1 and
others chasing the accused and assisted in restraining him. PW6 is
a Civil Police Officer who claimed to have witnessed the chase and
stated that MO1 (purse) and MO2 (identity card) were found in
the possession of the accused. PW7 is the Sub Inspector of Police
who registered the FIR and filed the final report after conducting
the entire investigation.
5. The case relates to an alleged incident of pickpocketing,
where the accused is said to have stolen a purse from the back
pocket of PW1, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, while he was
boarding a bus. PW1 deposed that on 17.03.2011 at about 8:30
p.m., after his duty, while he was boarding a bus from
Thampanoor bus stand, he felt someone attempting to remove his
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :4:
2026:KER:28460
purse from his back pocket. On sensing this, he turned back and
caught hold of the hand of a person. The said person then struck
off his hands and fled from the spot. PW1 chased him, shouting
"thief, thief," and was joined by autorickshaw drivers and later by
PW5 and PW6. The accused was eventually restrained, and PW1
stated that he saw the accused holding his purse. Thereafter, the
accused was taken to the police station, and Ext. P1 First
Information Statement was lodged.
6. It is undisputed that both the trial court and the appellate
court concurrently found the accused guilty, primarily relying on
the testimonies of PW1, PW5, and PW6. PW1 is the de facto
complainant, while PW5 is a home guard and PW6 is the Assistant
Sub Inspector of Police, both attached to Thampanoor police
station. Although PW2 to PW4, the independent witnesses, did not
support the prosecution case, PW5 and PW6 supported the
prosecution version.
7. One of the main contentions taken by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner is that the present case was
falsely foisted due to an altercation between PW1 and the accused
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :5:
2026:KER:28460
that occurred at Thampanoor bus stand on the alleged date of the
incident. However, apart from a mere suggestion during
cross-examination, no evidence was adduced to substantiate that
such an altercation had taken place. Moreover, the said
suggestion was denied by PW1. Therefore, the contention that
this case was fabricated cannot be accepted.
8. However, it cannot be ignored that in the case at hand,
even PW1 does not have a case that he saw the accused picking
the purse from his pocket. What he deposed is that, on feeling
somebody picking his pocket, he turned back and caught hold of
the hands of the accused, who then freed himself from PW1's grip
and took to his heels. Thereafter, according to PW1, he chased the
accused, shouting "thief, thief," and subsequently, some
autorickshaw drivers, as well as PW5 and PW6, also joined in
chasing the accused, and he saw the accused being restrained
with his purse. Notably, PW1 does not have a case that, when he
turned back, he saw the accused carrying his purse.
9. However, the subsequent conduct of the accused in
running away from the spot and his possession of the purse when
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :6:
2026:KER:28460
restrained are the main circumstances which incriminate him.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that the conduct of the accused
in running away from the spot alone is not sufficient to conclude
that he is the thief, particularly when the evidence shows that
immediately after the incident, PW1, the police officer, turned
towards him and shouted "thief, thief," on a mere suspicion that
the accused was the pickpocket. In such a situation, if the
accused ran away, it may have been due to fear.
10. However, the fact that immediately after the theft, the
accused was restrained with PW1's purse will certainly help the
prosecution to a large extent in proving its case. In view of
Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is found
in possession of stolen property immediately after the theft, a
presumption can be drawn that he is either the thief or the
receiver of the stolen property. However, such a presumption can
be drawn only when the immediate possession of the stolen
property by the accused is fully and convincingly established.
11. In the case at hand, PW1, PW5, and PW6 are the
witnesses who deposed that they restrained the accused with MO1
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :7:
2026:KER:28460
purse and MO2, the copy of the identity card of PW1, inside it. As
already stated, PW5 and PW6 are police officers. It is true that
this alone is not a reason to disbelieve their evidence. However, in
this case, there is a suspicious circumstance which persuades me
to disbelieve the case of those witnesses. Even as per the
prosecution case, an amount of Rs. 200/- was also kept inside the
said purse. In re-examination, PW1 also admitted that an amount
of Rs. 200/- was inside the purse. However, the said amount was
neither recovered nor produced before the court. It is highly
suspicious as to what prevented the police officer who conducted
the investigation from recovering the said amount and producing
the same before the court.
12. Moreover, when PW5 was examined and confronted with
MO1 purse, what he deposed was that the purse found in the
hands of the accused was a purse like MO1. Thus, PW5 was not
certain that MO1 was the purse found in the hands of the accused
immediately after the incident. As already stated, the
non-recovery and non-production of the currency notes allegedly
found in the purse will certainly give room for doubt in favour of
the accused.
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :8:
2026:KER:28460
13. While considering the submission made by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused/revision
petitioner is a person having a clean record without any criminal
antecedents, I am at a loss to understand how the same would
help the accused to secure an acquittal in this case. It is settled
law that the character of an accused is of little relevance in a
criminal prosecution. Therefore, merely because no criminal
antecedents are pointed out against the accused by the
prosecution, he is not entitled to be acquitted if there is
convincing evidence to prove his guilt in the case charged against
him.
14. As already stated, in the case at hand, there exists a
reasonable circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution, as
the currency notes were not recovered. Moreover, no explanation
has been offered by the prosecution for the non-recovery of the
currency notes. In such a scenario, the hostility shown by the
independent witnesses, including the autorickshaw drivers who
allegedly chased the accused, must also be viewed seriously.
Hence, the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2017 :9:
2026:KER:28460
Resultantly, the Revision Petition is allowed, and the judgment
of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the
revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside, and he is
acquitted.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
