Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
YESUDAS.R – Appellant
Versus
1 *RAMESH 2 STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 356 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH, SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL), SHRI.SHAJI V.T.
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
The appellate court erred by confiscating items established as belonging to the petitioner despite clear evidence of ownership.
Headnote:The petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.4 of 2009, alleging offences punishable under Sections 454, 461 and 380 of IPC. The petitioner asserts that MOs 1 to 3, belonging to him, were wrongly ordered to be confiscated by the appellate court despite clear evidence of ownership established by the trial court's findings. Issues addressed include the sufficiency of recovery evidence for conviction and the rightful ownership of recovered items. The appellate court's directions regarding confiscation are found to be erroneous, and the trial court is instructed to release the items to the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and original convictions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion of evidence and findings from both courts. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.4 of
2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peerumedu (for short, 'the trial court'). The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 454 , 461 and 380 of IPC .
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 29.09.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., the accused committed lurking house trespass by breaking open the window of the house of the petitioner and entered into the bed room of the house and broke open a suit case and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 8.800 gm, bracelet weighing 1.900 gm, three gold rings weighing 3.900 gm, 860 ml. gm and 1.500 gm each worth Rs.18,500/-, which are marked as MOs 1 to 3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. The conviction was based mainly on the recovery of MOs 1 to 3 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thodupuzha, (for short, the appellate court') in Crl.A.No.95 of 2018, set aside the conviction mainly on the ground that the conviction cannot be solely based on the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the judgment of the trial court, there was a direction to release MOs 1 to 3 to the petitioner. However, in the appellate court judgment, there was a direction to confiscate MOs 1 to 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction. According to him, MOs 1 to 3, belonging to him, should have been directed to be released to him. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Heard both sides.
4. I went through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. In the judgment of the trial court, there is a clear finding that MOs 1 to 3 belong to the petitioner. It was recovered from a jewellery shop on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused while he was in police custody.
However, the appellate court did not believe the evidence regarding the recovery in toto. It was also found that the conviction cannot be based solely on the evidence regarding the recovery. It was in these circumstances, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. However, a reading of the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court would show that there is clear evidence to show that MOs 1 to 3 belong to the petitioner. There is no rival claimant also. In these circumstances, the direction in the judgment of the appellate court to confiscate MOs 1 to 3 is liable to be set aside. The trial court is directed to release MOs 1 to 3 to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
