IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 60 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRA.9/1998 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.169/1995 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MOHANAN, CONVICT NO.1501, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHANAN V ALAPPAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ............................................. CRL.R.P. NO. 60 OF 2010 ............................................ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this Revision filed from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, the Revision petitioner who was the first accused in C.C. No. 169 of 1995 on the file the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 457, 392 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sectios 457 and 392 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised follows:- Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery from Shop No. T.C. III/1097 where P.W.1 was conducting business in the name and style of “Mini Cold Storage” by the side of the Kesavadasapuram-Mannanthala M.C. Road, near Paruthippara junction criminally trespassed into the said shop room at 8 p.m. On 1-6-1994. The first accused brandishing a knife at P.W.1 who was sitting near the table threatened him by saying not to move or else he would kill him. Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:2:- (“അനങപകര ത കകന കളയ  , ”). Uttering the above words A1 caught hold of the shirt of P.W.1 and dragged him out of the seat the snatched the day's collection amounting to Rs. 5,000/- along with a pass book kept on the table. A2 damaged the telephone causing a loss of Rs. 100/-. A3 threatened P.Ws 2 and 3. The accused persons have thereby committed the aforementioned offences 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7.. and one kinife as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 24-09-1997 found the revision 0etitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 392 I.P.C. For the Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:3:- conviction under Sections 457 and 392 I.P.C. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years each with a direction that the sentences shall run consecutively. On appeal preferred by the petitioner as Crl. Appeal 9/98 before the Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 2-7-2005 confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision. 6. I heard Adv. Sri. Unni V. Alappat appearing for the Revision Petitioner on State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made a fervent plea for reduction of the sentence. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:4:- submissions. This Court had called for a report from the District Probation Officer, Thiruvaanthapuram. In the report dated 18-2-2010, the District Probation Officer has mentioned that the petitioner is an accused in 16 cases most of which involving offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 379 etc. Under these circumstances, penal servitude by way of incarceration alone can act as an effective disincentive. I, therefore, confirm the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. However, the direction that the sentences shall run consecutively was not called for on the materials before the courts below. No evidence was adduced before the Courts below to prove the involvement of the petitioner in other crimes. Accordingly it is ordered that the sentences under each count shall run concurrently. In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence but directing that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge