Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
POLY S/O. KOCHAPPU AGED 34 YEARS,ULLADIKULAM VEEDU, PULLUR DESOM, PULLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNTHAPURAM TALUK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2695 OF 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN, SRI.C.A.CHACKO, PP SRI. SANGEETHA RAJ N.R
Conviction upheld based on credible victim testimony and corroborated recoveries under IPC Sections 448 and 392; High Court's review power limited to preventing arbitrary judgments.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448 and 392 - Conviction based on evidence of victim and recovery of stolen items - The accused were convicted and sentenced following trials in lower courts for house trespass and theft after threatening the victim with a knife, supported by competent evidence by the victim and subsequent recovery of stolen goods. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of High Court in revision - The scope of High Court's review powers is limited; it will not reassess evidence unless a decision is perverse or arbitrary - The concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were confirmed, warranting no reappraisal. (Paras 5, 11)
Facts of the case:
Accused were found guilty for trespassing into the victim's house, threatening her, and stealing valuable items. The trial court's verdict was upheld by the appellate court despite arguments on evidence integrity and identification issues led by the defense.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution successfully proved the necessary elements under Sections 448 and 392 IPC, with corroborative evidence backing the victim's testimony and supporting recovery proceedings.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the identity of the accused as established through witness testimony and confession statements, alongside the admissibility of recovery evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the victim maintained credibility despite defense claims, and the identity and recovery indirect proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: There is no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction on the basis of evidence of victim and recovery of stolen goods. (Para 3) |
| 2. defense arguments on evidence integrity and test identification. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. importance of corroborated testimony and proper recovery procedures. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. high court's limited jurisdiction to only review for arbitrary findings. (Para 11) |
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025 This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence under Section 448 read with Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.
No.135/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi (for short, ‘the trial court’). They along with the accused No.1 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 392 of IPC .
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 05.09.1994 at about 12 in the midnight, the accused trespassed into the house of the victim after breaking the lock, put her into fear of death showing a knife and got her ornaments from her and the key of the almirah. Thereafter, the accused opened the almirah and committed theft of gold ornaments, one electronic torch, two wrist watches and one camera worth Rs.1,26,000/- and stole cash of Rs.10,400/-.
4. Before the trial court, PWs1 to 19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Mos.1 to 13 were identified. On the side of the defence, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D4(a) were marked. After the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 448 and 392 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 448 of and rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence under Section 392 of . All the accused challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Palakkad (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Crl.A.No.303/2000. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court. This revision petition has been filed by the accused Nos.2 and 3 challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.
5. I have heard Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners impeached the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the identity of the petitioners had not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the failure to conduct test identification parade is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the recoveries alleged to have been made on different dates from different places are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus inadmissible. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court inBijender v. State of Haryana [2022 1 SCC 92] , the learned Senior Counsel argued that the conviction based on the confession statement under Section 27 of the cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Sections 448 and 392 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that reappreciation of evidence is not called for in revision.
7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the victim who was examined as PW2 and the evidence regarding the recovery of the stolen articles under Sect
