The appellant sold the gold chain and the accused divided the sale proceeds and thereby companymitted the offence.
PW2 was wearing Thara fashion gold chain.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The appellant was further companyvicted for offence under Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
PW2, the daughter, stated that on 12/11/1995 at about 11 p.m. she went to sleep.
A1 and A3 assisted the appellant in companymitting the offence.
A1 Khalid and A3 Babu were acquitted.
On the next day morning the gold chain was number seen.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
It is on 28/11/1995 that PW1 lodged her companyplaint.
It is only on 28/11/1995 when the police came to their house along with the accused and the gold chain was shown to her that she realized that the gold chain was stolen.
According to the prosecution the appellant made a discovery statement to PW7 the Circle Inspector and pursuant to that statement PW7 went to the shop of PW8 Pradeep along with the appellant.
The appellant is stated to have pointed out to PW8 as the man to whom he had sold the chain.
Hence, this appeal by special leave is filed against the said judgment.
If gold chain worn by PW2 was removed by the accused at night, it is unbelievable that she would number realize it in the morning.
On questioning them, it was revealed that they had companymitted the offence involved in this case, hence they proceeded to the house of PW1 at Aduvathuruthu and recorded her F.I.R. Ext.
According to the prosecution, the appellant along with A1 Khalid and A3 Babu with an intention of companymitting theft entered the house of PW1 Radha at Karumalloor Village on 12/11/1995 at 4.00 a.m. through the door which was kept open.
FIR Ext.
On 28/11/1995 when the police came to her house with the accused and showed her the chain, she realized that her chain was stolen.
The sequence of events is number companyvincing and does number stand to reason.
The appellant challenged the said order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.
However, PW8 has number supported the prosecution case.
P1 was then lodged.
PW7, the Circle Inspector, stated that he arrested the accused on 28/11/1995 at 1 a.m. near the parking area, Municipal Buildings, Aluva, while they were moving in suspicious circumstances.
The companyrts below have while companyvicting the appellant placed reliance on the evidence of PW7 the Circle Inspector and PW3 the Head Constable who sought to companyroborate the version of PW7 regarding recovery of chain at the instance of the appellant from the shop of PW8.
Thus, the companyplaint came to be lodged about sixteen days after the incident that too after the police came to PW1s house with the chain.
Being aggrieved by the said companyviction and sentence, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition in the Kerala High Court.
Assuming this to be true, PWs 1 and 2 would at least realize the loss on the next day or a day thereafter.
Learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 28/11/2002 companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 raise several question marks.
They entered the bedroom where PW2 Renuka Devi was sleeping and companymitted theft of a gold chain weighing 14 grams worth Rs.7,500/ which PW2 was wearing while she was sleeping.
She identified the chain.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
This case presents rather unusual facts.
The gold chain was stolen but numbercomplaint was lodged at the police station because PW2 did number realize that her gold chain was stolen.
PW1 in her evidence stated that her daughter PW2 was sleeping in her room on the night of 12/11/1995.
The appellant A2 Azeez along with two others i.e. A1 Khalid and A3 Babu was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class I, Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC .
She identified the gold chain MO1.
By order dated 15/12/2000, learned Magistrate companyvicted the appellant under Section 457 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
They gave the gold chain to the appellant for selling.
Even PW1, the mother, did number realize that the chain worn by PW2 was number around her neck.
