Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


V.M. HASHIM v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 275 of 2002 [2006] RD-KL 1620 (15 November 2006)


Crl Rev Pet No. 275 of 2002()

... Petitioner


... Respondent



The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :15/11/2006



Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 th

Dated this the 15 day of November, 2006


This is revision registered on receipt of petition from the accused from prison complaining of the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur in C.C.642/1995 on the file of his court confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Criminal Appeal No.226/1997.

2. The petitioner was the accused in C.C.642/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kannur for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC he having been charge sheeted by Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -2- the S.H.O., Valapattanam in Crime No.160/94 of Valapattanam Police Station.

3. The allegation is that during night on 12-05-1994, he committed theft of a car stereo worth Rs.4,000/- from the car bearing registration No.KEZ 1828 belonging to PW1 which was parked in the car porch of the house of PW1 situated in Puzhathi desom of Chirakkal amsom. On the next day, by about 7.00 am, when PW1 attempted to take the car, it was found that the stereo set was missing from the car which was worth Rs.4,000/-. Immediately, she gave Ext.P5 F.I. statement to the Police at the Valapattanam Police Station. PW7, the A.S.I attached to the said Police Station Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -3- conducted preliminary investigation in the case. As the Police could not detect either the material object or the offender, the case was transferred to the register of undetected cases. In the meanwhile, on 13.03.1995, PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur effected arrest of the petitioner/accused from the Muncipal bus stand when he was found in a suspicious circumstances carrying a box. On questioning by the Police, he was not able to give satisfactory explanation for his possession of the box which contained the car stereo set. He was taken to the Police Station and on questioning by PW6, it is alleged that the petitioner gave Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -4- Ext.P3(a) information to PW6 and that on the basis thereof and with the assistance of the petitioner/accused, he could effect recovery of MO1 stereo set from PW3 who was the purchaser thereof from the accused, under Ext.P3 Mahazar attested also by PW4.

4. As the place of occurrence was within the territorial limits of Valapattanam Police Station, he transmitted the case records to the Valapattanam Police Station where PW7 and after him his successor in office conducted investigation in the case. MO1 was got identified through PW1 and after due investigation the Police laid charge against him. The learned Magistrate heard preliminary arguments in the case Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -5- and framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC. As he denied the charge, a trial of the case was conducted. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7, got marked Exts.P1 to P5 and got identified MO1. On the prosecution closing their evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he generally denied all incriminating circum- stances appearing in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. According to him, the case is one falsely foisted against him.

5. The learned Magistrate considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced as aforesaid, found the petitioner Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -6- guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. The petitioner, filed Criminal Appeal No.226/97 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against him and hence, this revision.

6. It is contended before me by the learned Counsel appearing on State Brief for the petitioner that there is no proper identification of MO1 as PW1 had not given the number of MO1 in the F.I. Statement, though he has given those details in his deposition as PW1. It is worthy to note Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -7- that a person who has owned an article may be able to identify the said article on sight though he may not be having any specific identification mark to be mentioned. Further, on seeing that the stereo set is stolen from her car, PW1 has given F.I. statement immediately without perusing the records of purchase thereof. Obviously, then she will not be able to give the details of MO1 such a number etc. But at the same time, when the culprit is arrested and it is learned that the MO1 is recovered at his instance, it is natural that PW1 would verify the identity thereof with the records and then get confirmed as to its identity. The fact that MO1 had Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -8- been stolen in the night on 12.05.1994 is evidenced from the fact that on the very next day, PW1 had given Ext.P1 F.I. Statement to the Police. Though PW5, the A.S.I could not trace out the culprit, when PW6 effected arrest of the accused under suspicious circumstances on the basis of Ext.P3(a) information furnished to him by the accused, he could effect recovery of MO1 under Ext.P3 Mahazar attested also by PW4 from PW3 who was the purchaser thereof from the accused. There is no valid challenge on the testimony of PW3 as regards his testimony that MO1 was sold to him by the accused. If at all, MO1 was not being purchased by PW3 from the Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -9- petitioner/accused, he would not have surrendered it to PW6 on his approaching him along with the petitioner/accused and given evidence in support thereof. The seizure of MO1 from PW3 under Ext.P3 Mahazar goes a long way to establish the guilt in the accused as it is on the basis of Ext.P3(a) information furnished by the accused that PW6 was able to effect recovery of MO1 from PW3 to whom the petitioner/accused disclosed that he has sold MO1. Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the case to bring home the guilt in the accused. It was therefore, that the learned Magistrate convicted him for offence under Section 379 IPC. The said Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -10- conviction was rightly being confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal. There is no illegality or impropriety in the conviction and sentence so entered into concurrently by the courts below. The sentence awarded to the appellant is also moderate, reasonable and legal and there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as well. This revision in the circumstances, is devoid of merit.

7. In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner concurrently by the courts below, I dismiss this Criminal Revision. K. P. BALACHANDRAN,


kns/- Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -11- Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -12-


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.