Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J
Sreenesh, S/o. Lohidakshan, Palackaparambil Veedu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellants, who are accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.349/2004 on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Section 397 read with Section 395 and Section 412 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 18/11/2003 at about 02:30 a.m. the accused persons eight in number waylaid the mini lorry bearing registration no.KL-Z/E-8442 driven by PW1 at Edappally in the National Highway bypass road and forcibly took away Rs.51,000/-. PW1 was proceeding to Manjeri for purchasing plantains. The accused persons who arrived in a car were armed with weapons like sword sticks. They caused damage to the lorry, entered into the cabin of the lorry from either side and pulled down PW1 as well as PW2, the cleaner of the lorry and by threatening PW1 stole Rs.50,000/- kept in the dashboard of the lorry and also Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of PW1. Hence, the accused persons, as per the charge sheet, were alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.
3. Crime no.418/2003, Kalamassery police station, that is, Ext.P1(a) FIR was regis
The court upheld the conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC, confirming that identification by witnesses was credible despite procedural discrepancies.
1. The term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section....
The conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
The court ruled that the failure of prosecution to corroborate witness testimonies and resolve inconsistencies led to the acquittal of the accused.
Point of Law : Conviction for an offence of dacoity less than five persons is not sustainable. It was also held that before an offence under Section 395 of the IPC can be made out, there must be an a....
The conviction for dacoity under Section 395 IPC was upheld, establishing identity and recovery through credible evidence, despite challenges regarding prosecution evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal proof beyond all shadow of doubt in a criminal trial and highlights that suspicion or claim of identification alone is not sufficient for conviction.
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
