IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1930 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.81/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.647/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 & 3: ---------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O.OOTTOLIVEETTIL SIVARAMAN, THRIKKOOR VILLAGE, THALORE DESOM. 2. ANILAN @ ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KURUVATHVEETTIL KUNJIRAMAN, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MADAVAKARA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.SONIYA.M RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1930 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioners are accused persons 2 and 3 in a case chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 347, 394 and the first part of Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC. They and accused persons 1 and 4 are accused to have wrongfully confined PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and committed robbery by forcing PW1 away from the premises of the KSRTC Bus Stand, Thrissur at about 12 noon on 27.5.1997 into a jeep purchased by the first accused from PW5. It is further alleged that the petitioner was taken away from that scene to Kuriachira in Thrissur and on the way, he was slapped by the 4th accused and the second accused deprived PW1 of Rupees 2½ lakhs, which he was allegedly carrying for CW5, from Perunthalmanna to Kochi harbour to be distributed to 4 or 5 persons. Crl.RP.1930/04 Page numbers 2. PWs.2 to 4 cited as eye witnesses, turned hostile. CW5, to whom the money allegedly belonged, did not tender evidence in spite of being summoned. The investigating officer CW18 was also not examined. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is stated to have been seized from the custody of the first accused, who, it is stated, thereafter ran away following the attempt to intercept. However, no seizure mahazar has been prepared. Nor were those currencies produced in court. It is not a material object produced in this case. There is also no material to show from whom the said amount was recovered. Accused persons 1 and 4 are absconding and the case split up for trial. With the aforesaid scenario in hand, the courts below have concurrently convicted accused persons 2 and 3. 3. The scene of occurrence is Thrissur KSRTC Bus Stand. Even according to PW1, he is not familiar with accused persons 1 to 4. He was 18 years at the time of the incident and gave evidence when he was 22 years old. He could not identify the person, to whom he was to deliver the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in Crl.RP.1930/04 Page numbers Kochin harbour. He says that after he was permitted to alight from the jeep at Kuriachira, he telephoned CW5, his master, in Perinthalmanna, who, thereafter came down and took PW1 to lodge the First Information Statement before the Thrissur Town East Police Station. PWs.6 and 7 are police constables attached to the Ollur Police Station. On the information of PW7, PW6 is stated to have entered the jeep, resulting in the interception and apprehension of the accused persons 2 and 3. 4. From the above, it can be seen that there is no material at all worth credence. More so because the time of occurrence is 12 noon. If PW1 did not know any among the accused persons and was whisked away using force, at noon, from the KSRTC Bus Stand in Thrissur, that too, when PW1 is stated to be carrying Rs.2,50,000/- with him, there is no material that he even required any alarm as is expected in the common course of human conduct. In the context, this is the most sensible basis to arrive at conclusion as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the allegations against accused persons 2 and 3. Not Crl.RP.1930/04 Page numbers only that, CW5, to whom the money allegedly belongs, never bothered to tender evidence. One does not know even as to whether the alleged transaction of PW1 carrying the money for CW5 from Perinthalmanna to Wellington Island is trustworthy at all. This is more so because PW1 says he did not even know the identity of the persons to whom he was to give the money in Wellington Island, but had only their addresses and still further, he is going to Wellington Island for the first time on behalf of CW5. Even assuming that the courts may swallow all the aforesaid, it really shocks any concept relatable to common course of human conduct that PW1, at the age of 18 years, took the alleged incidents to be one where he could make a telephone call from Kuriachira to Perinthalmanna which is in Malappuram district, far away from Thrissur and await the arrival of CW5 to lodge the F.I. statement. Still curious is the fact that the F.I. statement is shown to have recorded at 12.40, following the incident at 12 noon, while the statement is that he went to the police station only after CW5 came from Perinthalmanna, after having contacted over phone. Crl.RP.1930/04 Page numbers 5. The totality of the materials on record, even if of any evidentiary value, in no way inspires confidence to sustain the impugned orders of conviction and sentence. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned conviction and sentence and the revision petitioners are acquitted. The bail bonds will stand cancelled accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.16/8.