Kerala High Court
Aboobacker Sidhique @ Sudheer vs The State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2026
Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 1 2026:KER:26080
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. 977 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.302 OF 2012 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI IN CC NO.28 OF 2009 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, 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-6892031 -FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.SHAJAHAN - SR.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.977 of 2018 2 2026:KER:26080
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th March, 2026
ORDER
Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.302/2012 of Sessions Court, Manjeri, by which it confirmed the conviction and judgment passed by the trial court.
2. The prosecution case is that on 7.8.2008, at about 2.30 am, accused committed house breaking by night for the purpose of committing theft into building No.12/48 of Elamkulam Panchayat belonging to PW1 and committed theft of 9.75 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the inmates of the said house. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.
3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Before the trial court, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 3 2026:KER:26080
4. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay ₹2,000/- each for the said offences. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.302/2012, it was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was confirmed.
5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision, contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and failed to take note of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.
7. Let us see whether the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.
8. PW1 is the defacto complainant, who laid Ext.P1 first Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 4 2026:KER:26080 information statement qua the theft which took place in his house. Ext.P1(a) is the FIR. According to PW1, on the date of incident, while the inmates of the house were sleeping, a theft took place in his house and the gold ornaments worn by PW2, PW3 and their children were stolen by the thief.
9. PW2 and PW3 who are the inmates of the house have also testified regarding the theft took place in their house. There is no reason to suspect the version of PW1 to PW3 regarding the theft, which took place in their house on 7.8.2008.
10. PW4 testified that he running a jewellery named "New Smitha Jewellery'; that accused is known to him; that the accused had sold gold ornaments in his shop. Subsequently police had brought the accused to his shop and recovered the MO1 gold ingot weighing 58 grams as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar, he had signed in Ext.P2 as a witness.
11. PW8, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna has testified that the accused who was found in suspicious circumstances was arrested and Crime 1163/2008 was registered; that upon interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement regarding the offence of theft of gold ornaments and the sale of stolen gold to the shop of PW4. Accordingly, he took the accused to the shop of PW4 and recovered MO1 gold ingot from the shop of PW4.
Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 5 2026:KER:26080
12. It is in evidence that MO1 gold ingot was recovered from the 'New Smitha' Jewellery run by PW4 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. PW4 the jewellery owner has categorically testified that the police officer had brought the accused to his shop and recovered MO1 gold ingot. Leading the investigating officer to the shop of PW4 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.
13. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused committed the house breaking by night into the house of PW1 and stolen the gold ornaments of the inmates of the house.
14. The evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses mutually corroborates each other. The recovery of MO1 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 versions of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and it mutually corroborate each other in material particulars.
15. On an analysis of the evidence tendered in this case, we can see that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC against the accused beyond any reasonable Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 6 2026:KER:26080 doubt as rightly held by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction against him for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.
16. Now let us see whether the sentence passed against the accused needs any modification.
17. 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.116/2010 and C.C.No.118/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna.
18. 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 Crl.R.P.No.977 of 2018 7 2026:KER:26080 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.
19. 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.116/2010 and C.C.No.118/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna, as urged by the learned counsel for 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