Kerala High Court
Sadgunan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:56341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
CRIME NO.46/2006 OF Eloor Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2016 IN Crl.A
NO.124 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2014 IN CC NO.524
OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH
PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 SADGUNAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.DAMODARAN, THRUKKEPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANJUMMEL KARA,
ELOOR VILLAGE.
2 SHIBU MANUEL
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL KARA,
ELOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SHRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, ELOOR, REPRESENTED BY
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:56341
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL.P.RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
3
2025:KER:56341
ORDER
Dated this the 30th day July, 2025
Under challenge in this criminal revision petition is the
conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioners
under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC.
2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.524 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, North Paravur. They along with another accused, stood trial
for committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420
read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused entered
into a criminal conspiracy to cheat PW1 and to make wrongful gain
and thereafter in furtherance of the same, entered into an agreement
for sale with him for selling 5 cents of land in survey No.76/11 of
Eloor Village. The said property was subject matter of O.S.No.63/95
on the files of the Sub Court Paravur. At the time of entering into the
agreement, the accused were aware that the property was already
attached by the Sub Court and that there exist a decree not to
alienate the property, except to PW5. By suppressing the real facts,
with a view to deceive and obtain money, the accused entered into an
agreement to sell the property for Rs.2,65,000/- on 19.11.2005 and
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
4
2025:KER:56341
thereafter, sold it by way of a registered sale deed on 28.11.2005.
4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution,
PW1 to PW6 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P10 documents were
marked. On examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in
evidence and contended that they are innocent. No evidence was
adduced from the side of the accused. During the pendency of the
case in the trial court, the 3 rd accused died. The trial court, on an
appreciation of the evidence on record, found accused Nos.1 and 2
guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and
420 of IPC and convicted them thereunder. They were sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The accused
were also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each to PW1
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal by
filing Criminal Appeal No.124/2014 before the Additional Sessions
Court, North Paravur. The said court by judgment dated 05.01.2016,
dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Sri.Jojo.A.V, the learned counsel for the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
5
2025:KER:56341
revision petitioners and Shri.Sanal.P.Raj, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not
appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a
wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that when
the 1st accused sold the property to PW1, the revision petitioners
were not having any knowledge/information regarding the decree or
the attachment passed in the suit and the revision petitioners
themselves, are victims of fraud committed by the 3 rd accused. He
submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
had a dishonest intention at the very inception itself to cheat PW1
and therefore, the offences, as alleged, will not lie. He relied on the
decisions in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltd. v. Agy George
(2023 KHC 9116), Sajan T Sunny v. State of Kerala [2024(1) KHC
457], to contend that the ingredients required for attracting the
offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC are not made out in the
instant case. He also submitted that the prosecution has not
examined the investigating officer and there is a delay of one month
in filing the complaint and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
6
2025:KER:56341
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported
the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. He submitted that the evidence of PW5
would show that the 2nd accused, at the time of purchase of the
property on 29.07.2004, was fully aware of the pendency of the suit
and the attachment prevailing over the property and that he had
thereafter sold it to the 1 st accused who in turn, has sold it to PW1.
He argued that from the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it can be seen that
accused Nos.1 to 3 were present together during the discussions
relating to the sale of the property to PW1 and that they have not
disclosed the attachment in the suit to PW1. According to the learned
Public Prosecutor, the afore facts clearly show that there was a
concerted effort on the part of the accused together and that they
had a dishonest intention at the very inception itself, to deceive PW1
and obtain money from him by selling the property, which was
already attached. He contended that, PW1 was constrained to
purchase the property and part with his money as a result of such a
deception.
9. The prosecution case is that the accused entered
into a criminal conspiracy and thereafter, in pursuance of the said
conspiracy, dishonestly induced the PW1 to purchase 5 cents of land
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
7
2025:KER:56341
belonging to the 1st accused and made PW1 to part with the
consideration by concealing the fact that the property in issue is
already under attachment by the orders of civil court. It is the
prosecution case that while O.S.No.63/1995 filed by PW5 against the
3rd accused was pending before the Sub Court and an attachment
was prevailing, the 3rd accused had sold the property involved in the
suit to the 2nd accused as per Ext.P4 document on 29.7.2004 and that
the 2nd accused had purchased the same fully knowing about the
attachment. Thereafter, the 2nd accused sold the said property to the
first accused as per Ext.P5 document dated 13.10.2004 and he, in
turn, sold it to PW1 on 28.11.2005 as per Ext.P2. It is their case that
all the accused, who were fully aware about the attachment in the
suit, has conspired together and had, by concealing the attachment,
made PW1 purchase the property after parting with the sale
consideration.
10. The materials on record show that the prosecution,
in order to establish its case, is mainly relying upon the evidence of
PW1 to PW5. The evidence of PW1 shows that he had purchased 5
cents of land standing in the name of the first accused, as per Ext.P2
document, on 28.11.2005. At that time, PW1 was informed that even
though the property stood in the name of the 1 st accused, the actual
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
8
2025:KER:56341
owner was the 2nd accused and it is the 3 rd accused who has given the
property to him. His evidence clearly shows that at the time of
discussions for the sale of the property, when the agreement for sale
was entered and in the course of execution of the sale deed, all the
accused were present. It further shows that all the accused have
participated in the discussions which led to the sale of the property
and that none of them have informed him about the pendency of
O.S.No.63/1995 or about the orders passed in it. PW1 also stated
that when he started to construct a house in the property, the Amin
came and delivered the property to PW5, who is the decree holder in
O.S.No.63/1995.
11. The evidence of PW2, who is the brother-in-law of
PW1 supports the evidence of PW1 and shows that at the time when
PW1 paid the price of the property to the 1 st accused, accused Nos.2
and 3 were present. The evidence of PW2 also shows that he was
present at the time when the agreement was executed, the advance
was paid, and when the registration took place and that on all those
occasions the accused did not mention anything about the pendency
of the case. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 shows that PW1 has
purchased the property from the accused and that at the time of
agreement, accused Nos.1 to 3, PW4 the broker, and one Simi were
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
9
2025:KER:56341
present. His evidence clearly shows that at the time of executing the
agreement, none of the accused mentioned about the pendency of
the suit and on the other hand, they have categorically stated that
there were no liabilities upon the property. PW4, the broker, deposed
that when PW1 approached him seeking a property, he had shown
the property in possession of accused Nos.2 and 3. He also stated
that advance for the transaction was paid to the 2 nd accused, in the
presence of the 3rd accused and from the brokerage of Rs.10,000/-
received by him, he had paid half of it to the 3 rd accused. It is also
discernible from his evidence that at the time when PW1 paid the
advance, all the accused were present.
12. Apart from the evidence of the afore witnesses, the
most crucial evidence is that of PW5, who is the decree holder in OS.
No.63/95. His evidence reveals that he had entered into an
agreement for sale with the 3rd accused for purchasing 5 cents of
land and since, the 3rd accused did not execute a sale deed, had to
file a suit and obtain a decree in his favour. He also also stated that
the appeal preferred by the 3rd accused ended in dismissal and he
got the property delivered in 2005. His evidence further reveals that
during the pendency of the suit, the 2nd accused had approached him
and had made enquiries about the suit and even after, he informed
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
10
2025:KER:56341
about the case, the 2nd accused had told him that he is going to
purchase the property. PW5 also stated that Ext.P9 is the order of
attachment passed in O.S.No.63/1995.
13. As held in the decision in Sajan T Sunny (cited
supra), to bring home the charge of conspiracy, it is necessary to
establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing
an unlawful act. Every act of commission or omission would not result
in hatching a criminal conspiracy unless, the acts have been done
deliberately and there is meeting of minds of all concerned. It is the
law that in cases of conspiracy, direct evidence may not be available
in all cases and the same can be proved through circumstantial
evidence also. Similarly, it is a settled law, as held in Scania
Commercial Vehicles India Pvt.Ltd. (cited supra), that the
prosecution must prove that the accused had an intention to defraud
the complainant right from the inception of the transaction itself in
order to sustain a conviction under Section 420 IPC. Apart from that,
the prosecution must also prove that as a consequence of cheating,
the accused has dishonestly induced a person to deceive and deliver
any property to any person.
14. In the instant case, from the evidence, as discussed
afore, it can be seen that even before the 2 nd accused purchased the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
11
2025:KER:56341
property from the third accused, he was fully aware of the pendency
of O.S.No.63/1995 and its status. The evidence of PW5 coupled with
Ext.P9 shows that the property in question has been attached as
early as on 31.01.995. The 2nd accused has purchased the property
from the 3rd accused only on 29.7.2004, as per Ext.P4. Immediately
thereafter, within a short span of time, the 2 nd accused sold the said
property to the first accused on 13.10.2004, as per Ext.P5 document.
It is very pertinent to note that there is no whisper in Ext.P5
regarding the pendency of the suit or regarding the existence of any
liability or attachment over the property. Similarly, the evidence
further reveals that the first accused has sold the property to PW1, as
per Ext.P2 document on 28.11.2005 and that the said document is
also silent regarding the pendency of the suit or about the existence
of any attachment or liability in the said property. Further, on going
through the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it is to be seen that all the
accused were present while the discussions for the purchase of the
property was going and when the agreement for sale was executed
and the advance paid. There is absolutely no explanation for the
presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 during those times, since they have
no role in a transaction between the 1 st accused (the owner of the
property) and PW1. Their evidence also categorically show that none
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
12
2025:KER:56341
of the accused and especially the 2 nd accused, has not disclosed about
the pendency of suit or the orders passed in it during all these times
and instead has even made a representation that there were no
liabilities on the property. From the afore conduct of the accused, it
can be safely deduced that all of them have conspired together and
have acted in a concert, by concealing a material fact and
dishonestly inducing PW1 to purchase the property. The inaction on
the part of the accused, and especially the 2nd accused, in not
disclosing the pendency of the suit and the order passed in it, a
material fact which all of them were aware, itself substantiates the
fact that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the accused at
the inception itself, to cheat PW1 and make him purchase the
property and part with the sale consideration.
15. In the light of the afore discussions, I find that no
error or illegality is committed by the trial court in appreciating the
evidence and in arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the accused
under section 120B and 420 IPC. Therefore, the challenge raised by
the revision petitioners on merits fail.
16. The next question to be considered is regarding the
sentence. It is to be seen that both the revision petitioners have been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
13
2025:KER:56341
months, each under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. Considering the
nature of allegations, its gravity, the fact that the incident took place
in the year 2005 and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of
the view that the substantive sentence imposed on the revision
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 can be modified and reduced to
simple imprisonment for a period of two months, each for the offence
under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. But I am also of the view that no
interference is required with the amount of compensation awarded
and the default sentence imposed for its non payment.
17. In the result, this criminal revision petition is
allowed in part as follows:
(i) The conviction of the revision petitioners/accused No.
1 and 2 under Sections 120B and 420 IPC in CC
No.524/2006 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
I, North Paravur and as confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.124/2014 by the Additional Sessions Court, North
Paravur, is upheld.
(ii) The sentence imposed on the revision
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is modified and reduced
to one of simple imprisonment for a period of two
months, each for the offences under Section 120B and
CRL.REV.PET NO. 276 OF 2016
14
2025:KER:56341
420 IPC.
(iii) The revision petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are also
ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to
PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of default,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month.
iv) The sentences shall run concurrently and set off is also
granted.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
saap