CHERIPARAMBAN MUJEEBREHIMAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 140 of 1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur. He along with two others were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as available in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Magistrate is as follows:

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that there is no reliable evidence to convict the petitioner. According to him, he was arrested one month after the alleged incident. The alleged recovery is also very much suspect. According to the petitioner, PW 1, who was the defacto complainant and the owner of the ornaments, did not, at the time of filing complainant, describe the ornaments stolen from his shop and as such it is doubtful whether the ornaments recovered were his. He challenges the presumption drawn by the Magistrate under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to him, the long lapse of time in arresting him would preclude the Magistrate from drawing the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the 1st accused and the petitioner were together prosecuted for the same offence and when the 1st accused was acquitted, the same treatment should be meted out to the petitioner as well.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.