KABEER, S/O. ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 392 I.P.C in C.C 151/2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. He faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 8.30 a.m on 23.8.2002, he committed robbery of the ear ornament of one Kunhami, and in the said process he caused injury to the said Kunhami. The Police registered the crime on the complaint of a neighbour of the said Kunhami. After about four months, he was arrested by the Police in suspicious circumstances, and when interrogated by the Police in custody, he gave a statement leading to the recovery of the gold ornament involved in this case. It was accordingly recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and it was got identified by the victim. After investigation, the Police submitted final report in court under Section 394 I.P.C.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 394 I.P.C. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The MO1 gold ear ring was identified during trial by PW2.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty and he was convicted under Section 394 I.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal before the Court of Session as Crl.A No. 550/2006. In appeal, the Court of Session remanded the matter to the trial court for proper decision after framing a proper charge. Accordingly, the trial court framed charge against the accused under Sections 392 and 394 I.P.C and proceeded to recall the witnesses. After complying with the procedure, after remand, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 392 I.P.C and he was found not guilty under Section 394 I.P.C. As regards the offence under Section 394 I.P.C, he was acquitted by the trial court. On conviction under Section 392 I.P.C, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 B= years and to pay a fine of b95000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 29.6.2007, the accused approached the Court of Session again with Crl.460/2007. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and accordingly dismissed the appeal.