Kerala High Court
Aboobacker Sidhique @ Sudheer vs The State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2026
Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 1 2026:KER:26078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 951 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.202 OF 2013 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT IN CC NO.118 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -II, PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE @ SUDHEER
S/O.HAMZA, KUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, KONDOORKARA,
ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD DT.
BY ADV SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682 031.
FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.SHAJAHAN T.K-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 5.3.2026, THE COURT ON 19.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 2 2026:KER:26078
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th March, 2026
ORDER
Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.202/2013 of Sessions Court, Manjeri by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused in C.C.No.118/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna.
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.9.2008 at about 3.30 am, accused committed lurking house trespass into the house bearing No.III/205 of Pulamanthole Panchayat belonging to PW4 and committed theft of 52 grams of gold ornaments after break opening the lock of almirah and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
3. Pursuant to Ext.P3 first information statement laid by PW4, the crime was registered. After completing the investigation, PW7 filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Accused abjured guilt and faced trial.
5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 3 2026:KER:26078 PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2.
6. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence and maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
7. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 457 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 380 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 461 IPC. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.202/2013 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.
8. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective; that the recovery alleged to have effected pursuant to the confession statement of accused is inadmissible in evidence and the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting the accused without taking into account the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 4 2026:KER:26078 prosecution evidence.
9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment.
10. Now let us see whether the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.
11. The law was set in motion by PW4 by laying Ext.P3 first information statement by alleging that in the wee hours of 22.9.2008, a theft took place in his house bearing door No.III/205 of Pulamanthole Panchayat and the thief stolen away 52 grams of gold ornaments kept in the almirah after break opening its lock.
12. According to PW4, two gold bangles and one pair of gold anklets kept in the almirah were stolen by the thief. He has further testified that the thief entered into the house by removing the roof tiles of the house.
13. According to PW5, on 22.9.2008 at 3.30 am, while she was sleeping, she felt someone groping on her legs and when she suddenly woke up, she could see a person standing near to her and when she cried aloud, the thief took to his heels. On verification, she could realise that the gold anklets and two gold bangles kept by her in the almirah in MO2 bag had been stolen away by the thief. PW5 has identified the accused as the person who trespassed into her bedroom in the wee hours of Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 5 2026:KER:26078 22.9.2008.
14. PW7, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna testified that the accused, who was found in a suspicious circumstances armed with weapons used for house breaking, was arrested by him and a crime was registered as Crime No.1163/2008. His further version is that upon interrogation, accused gave Ext.P5 disclosure statement pursuant to which, recovery of MO1 gold ingot was effected from the jewellery run by PW1. Ext.P1 is the seizure mahazar prepared by PW7 while effecting recovery of MO1 gold ingot from the jewellery shop of PW1.
15. According to PW1, he was running a jewellery shop under the name and style 'Smitha Jewellery', Muthumala; that in 2008, accused had came to his shop and had sold a pair of gold anklets and gold bangles weighing around 60 grams in total. PW1 has further testified that he had melted the said gold ornaments and had kept it as gold ingot. Subsequently, the police had brought the accused to his shop and recovered MO1 gold ingot after preparing Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW1 has further testified that he has signed as a witness to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar prepared by the police for effecting recovery of MO1 gold ingot.
16. PW2 has also testified that he is a witness to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar prepared by the police.
17. It is in evidence that MO1 gold ingot was recovered from the 'Smitha Jewellery' run by PW1 pursuant to Ext.P5 disclosure Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 6 2026:KER:26078 statement made by the accused. PW1, the jewellery owner has categorically testified that the police officer had brought the accused to his shop and recovered the gold ingot. Leading the investigating officer to the shop of PW1 wherein the accused sold the gold ornaments is a conduct which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as rightly held by learned Sessions Judge.
18. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused committed lurking house trespass by night into the house of PW4 and stolen the gold ornaments of the inmates of the house.
20. The evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses mutually corroborates each other. The recovery of the gold ingot pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused also stands proved in accordance with the law. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the prosecution evidence on any aspect. The version of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and it mutually corroborate each other in material particulars.
21. On an analysis of the evidence tendered in this case, we can see that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of IPC against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as rightly held by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court finds no reason to interfere with finding of conviction against the accused for the offence under Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 7 2026:KER:26078 Section 457, 461 and 380 IPC.
22. Now let us see whether the sentence passed against the accused needs any modification.
23. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benson v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 6678) the learned counsel for the accused urged this Court that the sentence in this case may be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence against the accused in three other cases namely, CC.No.27/2009, C.C.No.28/2009 and C.C.No.116/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna.
24. In Benson's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the normal rule in Sub-Section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. that if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced, is subject to a qualification and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. It was a case wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced in 12 cases of similar nature, of which accused was serving the sentence in respect of 8th crime. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court ordered that the sentence in remaining four cases shall run concurrently.
Crl.R.P.No.951 of 2018 8 2026:KER:26078
25. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offences committed by the accused, this Court finds no reason to direct that the sentence in this case to run concurrently with the sentence in C.C.No.27/2009, C.C.No.28/2009 and C.C.No.116/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna, as urged by the accused.
The Crl.Revision Petition stands dismissed.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence against the accused.
Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE ab