IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 544 of 1999()
1. JAIN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :02/04/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.544 of 1999
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence
under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
eighteen months.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.5.1993, at about
9.30 p.m., the accused who came in a motor cycle, while PW1,
the defacto complainant, was walking through the road, and
forcibly took away a sum of Rs.6,250/- kept by PW1 in a bag
placed inside his vest. The evidence adduced in the matter
consisted of the testimony of Pws’ 1 to 12, Exts. P1 to P5 and
MO1 series currency notes for a sum of Rs.4,500/-. It is the
contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that there is
a delay of 5 days in lodging the FIS and consequent registration
of the crime. The same has not been properly explained. It is
also pointed out that the identity of the accused has not been
properly established. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the
defacto complainant, the only other evidence in the matter is
CRRP544/1999 Page numbers
Section 27 recovery of Rs.4,500/- from PW4. PW4 as well as
PW5, the witnesses to the recovery of the amount turned hostile.
It is brought out that the accused is a person conducting a
canteen in the cinema theatre owned by PW4. The explanation
for the delay in complaining to the police, stated by PW1 is that
his wife is suffering from hyper tension and hence, he did not
report the matter immediately to the police. I find that the delay
to initiate the proceedings has not been explained properly.
3. So far as the identity of the accused is concerned the
evidence is as follows: It is the version of PW3, who according to
the prosecution has allegedly witnessed the incident while he
was passing through the alleged scene of occurrence riding a
bicycle, that PW1 caught hold on him on suspicion that it was he
who committed the robbery. It was the people who came there
got him disengaged him from the hands of PW1. PW1 has also
stated that he was under the impression that it was PW3 who
forcibly took the money. Suggestion to PW1 is that he
caught hold of PW3 under the impression that it is PW3 who took
away the money. He has stated that he thought that it is the
CRRP544/1999 Page numbers
accused who took away the money. Also no evidence has been
adduced by the prosecution to establish that there was sufficient
light at the place so that PW1 could identify the accused. In
view of the fact that the delay has not been explained properly
and that the identity of the accused has not been convincingly
proved, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the
charge beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, I find
that the accused is entitled benefit of doubt. In the result, the
accused acquitted.
The revision petition is allowed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl