Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Raju Thomas S/o Thomas - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A No. 2375 Of 2006
Decided On : 10-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR PP - RENJITH GEORGE
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; delays in evidence handling and lack of credible witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489 B and C - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for trafficking in counterfeit currency notes - The trial court convicted the 1st accused based on evidence of possession of fake notes, but the appeal highlighted significant delays in producing evidence and forwarding it to forensic analysis, raising doubts about the prosecution's case. (Paras 4, 8, 15, 19)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. The trial court's failure to provide adequate evidence for the recovery of counterfeit notes led to the acquittal of the 1st accused. (Paras 19)
Facts of the case:
The 1st accused was convicted for possessing and using counterfeit currency notes, but the appeal raised issues regarding delays in evidence handling and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the 1st accused were set aside due to insufficient evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the 1st accused based on the evidence presented and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution's delays and lack of credible evidence undermined the conviction, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
The 1st accused in S.C. No.1075/2003 on the of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge as per the judgment dated 02.12.2006. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. Coming to the prosecution case, it is alleged that, at about 8.15 p.m on 22.04.1992, after sharing common intention to traffic fake Indian currency notes of the denomination Rs.100/- and Rs.10/-, accused Nos.1 and 2, possessed the said notes and used the same as genuine. Accordingly, the accused were arrested and the alleged fake notes were taken into custody. It is on the said premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 489 B and C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by accused Nos. 1 and 2.
5. After, framing charge for the offences under Section 489 B and C read with 34 of the IPC, the trial court recorded evidence and tried the matter. PWs 1 to 11 were examined, Exts.P1 to 15 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused were given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning them under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, they did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the 1st accused is guilty for the o under Section 489 B and C read with 34 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against the 1st accused are extracted as under:
(a) 1st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year u/s 489 B I.P.C.
(b) 1st accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months u/s 489 C I.P.C.
(c) The sentence shall run concurrently.
(d) The period of detention undergone by the 1st accused in this case will be set o against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
7. Further, the 2nd accused was acquitted by the trial court for the reason that, the counterfeit currency note recovered from him was given by the 1st accused.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused raised multiple challenges, while assailing the verdict of the trial court. The prime and foremost challenge is that, there was delay in producing the alleged fake currency notes recovered from the accused before the Court and also forwarding the same to the FSL. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even though the alleged fake currency notes marked as MO1 series and MO2, which were seized from the accused, at about 8.15 pm on 22.04.1992, as per Ext.P11 property list, the currency notes recovered from the 1st and 2nd accused reached the Court only on 25.04.1992, as evident from Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 search lists produced before the Court. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused that, on house search of the 1st accused, two fake currency notes having denomination of Rs.100/- and three fake currency notes having denomination of Rs.10/- were recovered as per Ext.P4 mahazar on 23.04.1992 and the same produced before the Court only on 29.04.1992. Similarly, non production of forwarding note of the MOs sent for FSL Report also was pointed out as a serious flaw in the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused, even though no forwarding note produced before the Court, Ext.P14 series FSL reports would suggest that, th
