RAJAN VALIATHAN vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR

The revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 315 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, and the

second respondent is the accused therein. The second accused faced prosecution under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC in the court below on the

allegation that at about 7.30 p.m. on 06.10.1996, he trespassed into the house of one Rajan Valiathan, and committed theft of a gold chain of six

sovereigns. The Police registered the crime suo motu on the basis of the statements given by the accused on interrogation on 16.10.1997. On

22.10.1997, the Police seized a gold ingot from the jewellery of one Gopalan Achari on the basis of the statement given by the accused, and after

investigation, the Police submitted final report in court.

The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under the above Sections. The

prosecution examined six witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P3 documents in the trial court. The MO1 gold ingot was also identified during trial.

The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty. Accordingly, he was acquitted by judgment dated 17.06.2002.

Now the defacto complainant has come up in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal.

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no scope for interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

PW1 is the defacto complainant, and PW2 is his mother. They have given evidence regarding the theft of a gold ornament from their house on

06.10.1996. There is no explanation why PW1 did not make any complaint regarding the alleged theft. The accused was arrested by the Police on

16.10.1997 in connection with another crime, and on interrogation, the accused revealed some facts, including the theft in this case. Accordingly,

on the basis of the said inculpatory statement, the Police registered the FIR. On 22.10.1997, the Police got the accused in police custody from the

court, and on the same day, the MO1 gold ingot was recovered from the jewellery of PW5.

PW5 must be the very important witness in this case, because the gold ingot was seized from his jewellery. The prosecution would allege that

the gold ornament stolen by the accused was sold to PW5, and it was melted by him. As already stated, there is no explanation why PW1 did not

make any complaint regarding the instance of theft. It appears that the prosecution has no consistent case as regards the date of incident. In the

body of the FIR, the date is shown as 06.10.1996, whereas, in column 12 of the FIR, the date is shown as 06.10.1997. In column 4 of the FIR,

the date is seen corrected. It was initially written as 06.10.1996, and it was later corrected as 06.10.1997. Such a correction is not made in the

body of the FIR where the date of incident still stands as 06.10.1996. The evidence of PW1 is also that the theft occurred at his house on

06.10.1996. The FIR was suo motu registered by the Police on 16.10.1997 on the basis of what the accused stated implicating himself on

interrogation by the Police in another crime.

The only evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove the case is the recovery of MO1 gold ingot from the jewellery of PW5. But PW5 did

not support the prosecution. His evidence is that one day the Police team came at his jewellery, and demanded a gold chain. When he stated that

he had not purchased anything from the accused, the Police insisted and compelled him to hand over a gold ingot. It was accordingly the gold ingot

was handed over by him to the Police. He has no case that he had purchased any ornament from the accused, or that the accused had at any time

or on any date come to his jewellery to sell any ornament. Thus, the evidence given by PW5 is of no help to the prosecution. PW1 has no case

that house breaking was committed by the thief to commit theft of gold ornament. The scene mahazar also does not show any sort of damage on

the front or rear door of the house. Anyway, I find that there is no satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the alleged theft, except the

recovery of a gold ingot which stands not properly proved. There is nothing to show that the MO1 gold ingot is the ingot of the gold ornament sold

by the accused, or stolen by him from the house of PW2. Thus, I find that the accused was rightly found not guilty by the trial court.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.