Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish, J
Binu – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to concurrent convictions for arson under ipc 435/34. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. circumstantial evidence including enmity and scene presence sufficient. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. test identification not mandatory for reliable witness identification. (Para 7) |
| 4. non-examination of io causes no prejudice without contradictions. (Para 8) |
| 5. revision lacks merit; convictions upheld. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala and the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track)-II, Alappuzha in C.C No.210/2001 and Crl.A No.6/2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.2000/- each, for the commission of offence under Section 435 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that, at about 12:30 hrs in the midnight of 04.03.2001, the petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 3), along with the first accused, set ablaze the autorickshaw belonging to PW10, which was parked in the residential premises of PW1 in Ward No.13 of Aroor Panchayat. The enmity of the petitioners and the first accused with PW2, the driver of that a
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
