In the case of State vs. Appellant, a crucial judgment was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2008. The appeal filed by the appellant against the conviction under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC has led to a significant decision. Stay tuned for more details and the impact of this ruling in the legal landscape.
Facts
- The appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2008.
- The appeal was filed by the appellant against the conviction under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC.
- The appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
- The prosecution’s case stated that accused Nos. 1 to 8 arrived at a building in Perumbavoor with the intention to commit dacoity.
- Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6, and 7, armed with deadly weapons, entered a specific room in the building.
- The accused No.1 was absconding, leading to the case being split up and refiled in the committal court.
- The accused were re-arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 5, with charges framed for offences punishable under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC.
- The trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 as accused Nos. 1, 4, and 4 were absconding.
- A final report was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Perumbavoor, leading to the institution of C.P. No.89/2005.
- Accused Nos. 3 and 6, being minors, had charge-sheets filed against them in the Juvenile Court.
- The accused persons tied and manhandled the security guard (PW-1), committing robbery of his belongings.
- Accused Nos. 1 to 3 beat PW-1 with a wooden bar, while the appellant (accused No.2) kicked him on the naval portion.
- Sijo @ Fijo (accused No.4) beat PW-1 with an iron lever on the right leg, resulting in a fracture.
Also Read: Appeal Against Quashed School Construction Proposal
Arguments
- Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were found guilty and convicted by the trial court.
- Accused No. 5 was acquitted.
- The appellant’s counsel argues that the conviction is unsupported by evidence and requests the appeal to be allowed.
- The State’s counsel contends that both lower courts, after reviewing the evidence, upheld the appellant’s guilt, and therefore, there should be no interference.
Also Read: Contempt of Court in Land Dispute
Analysis
- Identification of the appellant by PW-1 is doubtful as no identification parade was conducted.
- PW-1 identified the accused persons in court after seeing them at the police station.
- The Investigating Officer (PW-8) admitted that PW-1 identified the accused at the police station.
- First-time identification in court without a proper parade raises doubts.
- No identification parade was conducted according to admission.
- The conviction of the appellant was largely based on the testimony of Babu Puttan (PW-1).
- Judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal and trial court convicting the appellant are not sustainable in law.
- No stolen article was recovered from the appellant.
- The prosecution did not provide evidence of any stolen item being in possession of the appellant.
- Based on lack of evidence of possession of stolen goods, the conviction of the appellant is not valid.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Abetment to Suicide Case
Decision
- Pending application(s) disposed of.
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment and order of trial court convicting the appellant quashed and set aside.
- Appellant acquitted of all charges.
- Bail bonds of the appellant on bail discharged.
Case Title: JAFAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA (2024 INSC 207)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001607-001607 / 2009
