Back
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Sabu @ Eetty Sabu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
When an attempt to commit theft is prevented by a witness who gets injured in the process, will the offence of robbery lie? Can the identification of the accused in court after four years of the incident be relied upon in the absence of a test identification parade? These questions have been raised for consideration by Adv.Saipooja in this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under sections 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
2. Prosecution alleges that on 10.09.2015 at about 01.00 am, the accused intruded into the house of PW1 after breaking open the window grills with the intention to commit theft and in the said process, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 and his wife and daughter by using a deadly weapon and thereby committed the offences alleged.
3. The crime was registered based on the statement given by PW1. The three main witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW3, were not only eyewitnesses but had also been injured in the alleged attempt of the accused to commit theft. After attacking and seriously injuring the three inmates of the house, the accused escaped. However, within hours, he was apprehended by the police.
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's scope of interference in acquittal appeals is limited.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
