SHAJI JOHN @ PRESS SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the instant Crime No.711/2019 of Naruvamoodu Polcie Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.392 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 9.11.2019 at about 3.50 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on the same day (9.11.2019) at about 12.30 noon. The petitioner (A2) has been arrested in this case on 15.11.2019, and after his remand has been under detention since then.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 9.11.2019 at about 12.3o noon, A1 had criminally trespassed into the house of the lady defacto complainant and threatened her by pointing a gun and committed robbery of a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns worn by the lady defacto complainant and yet another gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns worn by her daughter. Further that, earlier the petitioner herein (A2) had rented a car from Kottayam on 31.10.2019 and brought A1 along with him in the car to Thiruvananthapuram, and on the same day at 9.30 pm, the accused persons had rented a room at Silver Sand Hotel, Thiruvananthapuram, and returned to Kottayam on 1.11.2019. Thereafter on 5.11.2019, the accused persons had come to Kattakada in the same care and rented a room at Safar Lodge, at Kattakada. On 9.11.2019, the accused persons left the lodge without paying the bill. The accused persons returned to Kottayam and the petitioner herein (A2) helped A1 in selling the stolen gold at a shop in Kottayam. Thus the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner herein (A2) was having some joint business with A1 in the past, and because of the financial mismanagement of A1, the relationship got strained and A1 had owed about Rupees One Lakh to A2, and despite various requests, A1 had not given back the money. Later, A1 had pointed out that several persons in Thiruvananthapuram and other places owed him money and that he will collect money from them and give to the petitioner. Since the petitioner knew that A1 is a slippery character, he wanted to make sure that he is also present at the time when A1 gets the money from the persons who owe him money, as otherwise getting money from A1 would have been very difficult for the petitioner. A1 had then assured that he would take the entire expenses of both of them travelling together to Thiruvananthapuram and other places and their stay in lodge. And it is only because of that necessity that the petitioner herein (A2) had stayed in the lodge with A1. Further that, the fact that even as per the prosecution story only 7.5 sovereigns of gold was the subject matter of robbery, could also indicate that for such a small quantity of gold the accused persons need not pre-plan and stay in hotels in the manner. Therefore assessing the factual probabilities the version given by the petitioner that he had travelled with A1 and stayed in lodges, only to ensure that he gets money from A1, is more probable than the extreme story of the prosecution. A1 had told him that a person who had owed money to him had given him gold instead of money and A1 had given the said gold coming to about 4 sovereigns to the petitioner as part of the debt owed by A1 to the petitioner. That the petitioner had sold the gold at Kottayam for realizing his monies. Therefore it is urged that in the instant case, the criminal culpability of the petitioner herein (A2) is not in any manner disclosed and even according to the prosecution case the robbery was done by A1 alone. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case since 15.11.2019 and the further incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary, taking into account the allegations disclosed against him.