Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B.SNEHALATHA
Shyjal.C. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. confirmation of conviction and sentence (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. details of theft and police investigation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 18) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. inadmissibility of confession under evidence act (Para 22 , 24 , 37) |
ORDER :
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.
The challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.198/2017 of Sessions Court, Palakkad, by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/A2 in CC. No.949/2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad, for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 03.09.2016 at 00.30 hours, Accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-50-5087 owned by PW1 Babu from the residential premises of PW1.
3. Pursuant to Ext. P1 FI Statement laid by PW1, Ext.P10 FIR was registered by SHO Nattukal Police Station.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 08.09.2016, while the police party of Kolathur Police Station in Malappuram district were on night patrolling duty, they intercepted a motorcycle ridden by A1
A confession by a co-accused is inadmissible against another under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; therefore, the prosecution's failure to connect the accused with the crime led to acquittal.
Confessions made without arrest lack evidentiary value; possession of stolen property and direct evidence suffice for conviction despite claimed silence during questioning.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
A confession made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot alone serve as the basis for conviction without corroborating evidence, highlighting the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reaso....
The court distinguished between the use of confessions during investigation and confessed FIRs, permitting confessions to benefit the accused, particularly in assessing mitigating circumstances in se....
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
