Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Sadgunan, S/o. Damodaran and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By S.I. of Police, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet No. 276 of 2016
Decided On : 30-07-2025
For the Petitioners: Sri. A.X. Varghese, Shri. A.V. Jojo.
Other Present : Sri. Sanal P. Raj-PP
The court affirmed that conspiracy to cheat under IPC requires proof of shared intention to deceive, highlighted by the concealment of material facts.
Headnote:This judgment analyzes the prosecution's case of conspiracy to commit cheating under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The court found that the accused entered into a conspiracy to deceive by selling property that was under legal attachment, leading to the complaint by the victim. The court framed the question of whether the evidence proved the requisite guilty intention in these offenses. It ultimately held that the conviction was justifiable based on the evidence presented. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. The issues concerned the elements required to establish the charges under IPC sections. The decisions in cited cases were utilized to argue that mere failure to disclose existing liabilities does not alone infer criminal intent to defraud unless there is a clear consensus to deceive. The court stressed that all accused were complicit in the fraud. The resulting decision affirms the lower courts' findings, modifying the sentence to a term of two months for each accused while maintaining the compensation order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evaluation of parties involved in the conspiracy to deceive. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning evidential adequacy and knowledge of property status. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. interpretation of witness testimonies and the implications of actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal standards pertaining to intent and conspiracy in fraud cases. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling and sentence adjustments by the court. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Under challenge in this criminal revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioners under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC.
2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.524 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. They along with another accused, stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat PW1 and to make wrongful gain and thereafter in furtherance of the same, entered into an agreement for sale with him for selling 5 cents of land in survey No.76/11 of Eloor Village. The said property was subject matter of O.S.No.63/95 on the files of the Sub Court Paravur. At the time of entering into the agreement, the accused were aware that the property was already attached by the Sub Court and that there exist a decree not to alienate the property, except to PW5. By suppressing the real facts, with a view to deceive and obtain money, the accused entered into an agreement to sell the property for Rs.2,65,000/- on 19.11.2005 and thereafter, sold it by way of a registered sale deed on 28.11.2005.
4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P10 documents were marked. On examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence and contended that they are innocent. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. During the pendency of the case in the trial court, the 3rd accused died. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and convicted them thereunder. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The accused were also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No.124/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. The said court by judgment dated 05.01.2016, dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Sri.Jojo.A.V, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Shri.Sanal.P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that when the 1st accused sold the property to PW1, the revision petitioners were not having any knowledge/information regarding the decree or the attachment passed in the suit and the revision petitioners themselves, are victims of fraud committed by the 3rd accused. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had a dishonest intention at the very inception itself to cheat PW1 and therefore, the offences, as alleged, will not lie. He relied on the decisions in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltd. v. Agy George (2023 KHC 9116), Sajan T Sunny v. State of Kerala [ 2024(1) KHC 457 ], to contend that the ingredients required for attracting the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC are not made out in the insta
