IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 713 of 1998()
1. SURESH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :05/03/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.713 of 1998
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2007
ORDER
Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 457, 379 and 34 IPC. The prosecution
case is that on 3.5.1990, he along with the second accused
committed theft of MO1 gold chain worn by PW2 who was
sleeping in the house of PW1 at 2 O’clock in the night. The
evidence relied on by the courts below is the testimony of PW14,
the Sub Inspector of Police who recovered the stolen property
from a jewellery. PW1 the lady, from whom the gold chain was
stolen and PW2, her son who lodged the F.I. statement have
identified the gold chain. The evidence of PW14 Sub Inspector is
that the revision petitioner/accused led him to the jewellery and
on the basis of the information conveyed by him, the MO1 gold
chain was recovered. The relevant portion of confession has not
been marked vide Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, only
evidence in this regard is the testimony of PW14. The same is
relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act. It is pointed out that
CRRP713/98 Page numbers
the evidence of PW1 as to the incident is not consistent with
respect to the details mentioned in the F.I. statement. Although
in the F.I. statement the gold chain snatched from the neck of
PW2 weighed 20 gms., MO1 weighed only 16.5 gms. PW1 has
not explained the above discrepancy as to the nature of the gold
chain recovered. Further it is pointed out that the case in the
F.I. Statement, the version of PW1 is that the chain was snatched
and taken away whereas PW1 in her deposition has stated that
the theft chain was not removed in the above fashion but by
widening the hook. PW5, the proprietor of the jewellery from
whose shop, the gold chain was recovered did not support the
prosecution case. So also the independent witness to recovery
i.e, PW9 also turned hostile. Hence, in the instant case, the only
evidence is the testimony of PW14 that the accused led him to
the jewellery and on the basis of information furnished by him,
MO1 was recovered. In the circumstances, I find that only on
the basis of the testimony of the investigating officer, it cannot
be held that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. I find that the accused is entitled to benefit of
CRRP713/98 Page numbers
doubt. In the circumstances, findings of the court below is set
aside. The accused would stand acquitted.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl