Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
NIYAS S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
For the Respondents: SMT. BINDU.O.V-PP
Insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime leads to acquittal under the IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 392 - Conviction for robbery - Revision petition challenging conviction and sentence upheld due to lack of credible evidence connecting the accused to the crime - Witness identification flawed and prosecution's evidence insufficient. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Evidence - Inadequate substantiation of claims by the prosecution regarding pledging of the gold chain leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for snatching a gold chain from the victim but significant contradictions and lack of evidence flawed the prosecution’s case, leading to a challenge in higher court.
Findings of Court:
The earlier courts failed to consider critical evidences that raised doubts about the accused's involvement.
Issues: The primary concern was the integrity of witness identification and the evidence required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the prosecution had not provided sufficient links to the accused for the robbery allegation and highlighted the issues with witness credibility and evidentiary proofs.
Result: The revision petition was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused convicted for robbery based on victim's testimony. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court hearings and prosecution arguments presented. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. insufficient evidence leads to reasonable doubt regarding guilt. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. revision petition results in acquittal of the accused. (Para 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
(Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025)
The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 392 of IPC .
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No. 914/2011 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. He stood trial before that Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.07.2010 at about 10 a.m, while PW1 was walking through Thiruvathra- Pattalam road and when she reached in front of the house of one M.Madhavan, the accused came in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-10 U 8252 and snatched a gold chain worn by her, weighing 4 ½ sovereigns, after causing hurt to her.
4. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing both sides, found the accused guilty under Section 392 of IPC and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under of .
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl. Appeal No. 204/2012 before the Addl. Sessions Court IV, Thrissur. The said court by judgment dated
03.09.2015 dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Sri.Shahbas Aman C.M, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Bindu O.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The materials on record show that the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and has marked Exts.P1 to P12 documents and MO1 to MO6 to prove its case. Among the said witnesses, PW1 is the victim. According to her, on 24.07.2010 at about 10.00 a.m, while she was walking along with her child, the accused came there in a motor cycle, slowed down and snatched the gold chain with a locket weighing 4 ½ sovereigns worn by her, after causing hurt to her. Even though she screamed and followed the accused, the accused escaped in his bike. Immediately thereafter, she lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the Police. PW1 also identified the accused as the person who had snatched the gold chain worn by her.
8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the accused, during cross examination of PW1 has brought out a material contradiction in her evidence. In Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1, it is stated that at the time when the incident took place, the accused was wearing a black coloured helmet. When this fact was brought to the notice of PW1 during cross examination, she denied giving such a statement. When PW6 the investigating officer who recorded Ext.P1 FIS was asked regarding the same, he simply answered that it is a clerical mistake. The afore contradiction brought out in evidence of PW1 is a material one affecting the credibility of the evidence of PW1 identifying the accused. It is again to be taken note that no test identification parade has been conducted in this case and PW1 has no previous acquaintance with the accused and she has identified the accused in the court nearly more than a year after the incident. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to find that the identification evidence of PW1 is quite shaky.
9. Be that as it may, the prosecution case is that, the accused after committing theft of the gold chain from PW1 has pledged it in Manappuram Bank and has obtained Rs.47,000/-. It is also alleged that the said amount was used by the accused to purchase Mo1 to Mo4 gold ornaments, which were again pledged in the same bank. But even though the case of the prosecution is as such, the prosecution has not adduced any credible evidence to prove that the accused has thus pledged the gold chain stolen from PW1 with Manappuram Bank. On the other hand the evidence of PW5 itself would go to show th
