Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
K.P.Benny Rohal, S/o Late K.N.Prabhakaran - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.Appeal Nos.64, 86, 88, 91 and 106 of 2008
Decided on : 20-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT.M.R.ANUPAMA SRI.V.DIPU SRI.P.LEAN JOSE
For the Respondent: SRI.SREELAL WARRIAR, SC, CBI
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is permissible if it forms a complete chain of events pointing to guilt, and testimony from approvers may be relied upon if corroborated materially.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, Section 409, Section 411 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(2) - Conviction for conspiracy and misappropriation by public servants resulting in pilferage and illegal sale of high-speed diesel (HSD) - Accused, including a Deputy Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, were found guilty based on corroborated testimonies of approvers and circumstantial evidence indicating a systematic diversion of HSD to a petrol pump owned by co-accused. (Paras 1, 65)
Facts of the case:
Accused involved in a conspiracy to divert HSD from tankers to a petrol pump, misappropriating 1,01,000 litres of HSD belonging to oil companies across three incidents between April and May 2000. Prosecution utilized evidence from multiple witnesses, including approvers, to establish guilt. (Paras 2, 66)
Findings of Court:
Conviction of accused Nos.1 to 5 is upheld with reduced sentences citing health conditions and duration of trial - substantive sentence modified to one year rigorous imprisonment for selected accused. (Paras 66)
Issues: Key questions included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the reliability of accomplice testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that circumstantial evidence must collectively point to guilt, while also emphasizing the credibility requirements for approver testimony, asserting that convictions based on such evidence are legally permissible if corroborated adequately. (Para 48)
Result: Appeals allowed in part; sentences modified while upholding convictions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused involved in conspiracy and misappropriation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' denials and pleas of innocence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence of excess stock found supporting prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prosecution's burden to establish theft over unauthorized sale. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. circumstantial evidence of conspirators' involvement established. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 6. accused no.1's role in pilferage corroborated despite other claims. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 56) |
| 7. shortages in hsd discharge recognized as unusual circumstances. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. composition of circumstantial evidence required to establish guilt. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. judgment of conviction upheld with sentence modification. (Para 58 , 61 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.3 of 2001 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI-II), Ernakulam are the respective appellants. They were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 409 and 411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Section 13 (1)(c) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). They were sentenced for various terms of imprisonment and to pay fine for each of the said offences. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) are filed.)
2. The case of the prosecution is the following:
Accused No.1 was the Deputy Manager, Refinery Coordination, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at the South Tanker Jetty, Foreshore Road, Ernakulam. Accused Nos.2 and 5 owned a barge named “Dolphin”. Accused Nos.3 and 4, based on a partnership arrangement, were running a petrol pump near Thoppumpady Fishing Harbour under the name and style M/s Bava Enterprises. High Speed Diesel (HSD) was brought to the South Tanker Jetty on three occasions during April and May against the invoice of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and the IOC in oil tankers, namely, M.T.Prathibha Krishna, Sampurna Swarajya and Suvarna Swarajya. During the night intervening 22nd and 23rd of April, 2000, accused No.1 was on duty of Refinery Coordinator at South Tanker Berth and while discharging HSD from M.T.Prathibha Krishna, he in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched with the other accused, pilfered and loaded 30,000 litres of HSD to Dolphin Barge, which was eventually delivered to M/s.Bava Enterprises with the dishonest intention of its misappropriation. Similarly, during the night intervening 15th and 16th of May, 2000, pilfered 30,000 litres of HSD while pumping HSD from the vessel Sampurna Swarajya and delivered to M/s.Bava Enterprises. Again, during the night intervening 28th and 29th of May, 2000, pilfered 41,000 litres of HSD, while pumping out HSD from oil tanker Suvarna Swarajya, to Dolphin barge and delivered the same to M/s.Bava Enterprises. Thus, 1,01,000 litres of HSD belonging to HPCL and other oil companies was stolen and misappropriated by the said accused.
3. Accused No.1 allegedly had the deal for illegal sale of HSD to M/s.Bava Enterprises through accused Nos.6 to 8, who were local scrap dealers. The said accused turned approvers.
4. Accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the charge and at the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 51 and proved Exts.P1 to P130. MOs.1 to 16 were identified as well. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. Besides denying the incriminating circumstances against them appeared in evidence, they filed written statements. Accused No.1 maintained that considering the complexity in pumping out oil from the oil tankers using installations at the South Tanker Berth, pilferage as alleged was impossible. Each line is closed by hammer blinds and valves. The pumping speed along a line from the tanker is 1000 metric tons (MT) per hour. If any blockade; however little it is, the result is disasterous
