Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17270
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
SUNI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 665/2004
Possession of stolen property without adequate explanation can lead to a presumption of guilt under IPC provisions, reinforcing the burden of proof on the accused.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Offence - IPC Section List - This case discusses the elements of robbery under IPC, particularly section 392, outlining the proof of possession of stolen property and the presumption against the accused when unable to account for such possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused with others of robbing silver ornaments brought from Salem to Thrissur. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to enmity. The prosecution established that he was caught in possession of the stolen items shortly after the robbery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and material seizure, to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, dismissing defenses of false implication and inability to account for possession as unconvincing.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the legality of the conviction based on evidence of possession and the prosecution's ability to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession of stolen property creates a presumption of guilt unless satisfactorily explained by the accused, which the petitioner failed to do.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
The Revision Petitioner was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur along with three others accusing offence u/s 392 read with 34 I.P.C with an allegation that at 5 a.m. on 01.05.1996, the Revision Petitioner along with the other accused robbed 56 kgms. of silver ornaments worth Rs.2,25,000/- brought by PWs. 1 and 2 from Salem for sale in Thrissur.
2. The third accused could not be apprehended despite the coercive steps issued against him. Therefore, the revision petitioner and the other two accused namely, accused 2 and 4 were sent for trial. After hearing both sides charge was framed, read over and explained to which the accused pleaded not guilty. On side of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined. Exts. P1 to P6 were marked.
M.Os.1 to 6 were also marked. When questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner took a plea of total innocence and further contended that he was an employee of one Ramesh who was examined as DW2 and that he used to purchase ornaments from DW2 and sell it. He denied the prosecution case that silver ornaments involved in this case were seized by the Police at 4 a.m. on 05/06/1996 and further contended that he was arrested from his house and that DW2 had filed a complaint against PW2 and on the basis of that complaint, PW2 was arrested as was pointed out to the Police by the revision petitioner and because of that enmity to him, the case was falsely foisted. A Head Constable attached to the Vadakkekkara Circle office was examined as DW1. Exts. D1 to D4 were marked, in addition to the evidence of DW2, during the defence stage. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offence alleged against the revision petitioner, but failed to establish the offence alleged against accused 2 and 4. Consequently, while acquitting accused 2 and 4, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred criminal appeal 394/2002 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 24/01/2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred.
3. I have heard Adv.Sri.V.C.Sarath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.S.Suresh, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidence on record.
4. By the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the prosecution had succeeded to establish that PWs.1 and 2, who were merchants of silver ornaments at Salem, reached Thrissur on the early morning of 1.5.1996 by bus for business purpose with silver ornaments. They alighted in front of Ragam theatre and while proceeding ahead to Sree Budha lodge, they were intercepted, forced to board a car and was taken to the out-skirts of Thrissur. The fourth accused was the driver of the car. Before PWs.1 and 2 being taken into the car, they were beaten by the third accused. The bags containing the ornaments were taken inside of the car by the second accused wherein the revision petitioner was seated in the front seat. Pws.1 and 2 were forced inside the car stating that accused are police personnel. When the car reached at a place called Eravu, PWs.1 and 2 were thrown out and the car was driven away with the ornaments. PWs.1 and 2 returned to Thrissur and gave Ext.P1 first information statement before PW8, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur Town East Police station who registered the case for which Ext.P6 first information report was prepared.
5.
