IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 493 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.93/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA CRA.406/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOBY PAUL ALIAS VAVA S/O. PAULOSE, MARANCHERRY VEEDU, PUTHENPURA, PERUMANNUR KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .............................................. Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 .............................................. Dated: 24-2-2010 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 93 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Muvattupuzha, for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 201 I.P.C., challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the courts below concurrently against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.10-1995 at 7 p.m. the accused committed theft of a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KRO 5710 belonging to P.W.1 from the compound of Nedumchelil Trust Hospital, Muvattupuzha and thereafter changed the number of the motor cycle as KDE 1318 thereby causing disappearance of the evidence of theft and he has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 379 and 201 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 -:2:- prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined six witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and 1 material object as MO 1. 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 7-10-1998 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec. 379 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec. 201 I.P.C. In appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 406 of 1998 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31-3-2001 confirmed the conviction entered against the revision petitioner but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 -:3:- 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 adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. This Court had called for the report of the District Probation Officer, Moovattupuzha. In the detailed report dated 10-2-2010, the Probation Officer has inter alia reported as follows:- The petitioner has studied up to 10th standard and failed in the public examination. He could not continue his studies. He, therefore, engaged himself in the family agriculture which owns three acres of paddy field. The family is a simple structured family maintaining a very good parent children relationship. The petitioner is very much wanted in his family. His father is controlling the family. The locals and neighbours have good opinion about the family and the petitioner. His family is located at a typical rural area of Keerampara Grama Panchayath and most of the people there are depending upon agriculture and allied activities. for eking their livelihood. The main motive Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 -:4:- behind the offence was the influence of his peer group. 8. The District Probation Officer has recommended release of the petitioner on probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958. Instead of pronouncing sentence on him he is directed to be released on probation for a period of two years with a supervision order directing him to report before the District Probation Officer, Moovattupuzha once in a fortnight. He shall execute the necessary bond before the trial Court within two weeks from today and that court shall impose the necessary conditions of probation. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, J. .............................................. Crl.R,P. No. 493 of 2001 .............................................. Dated: 24-2-2010 O R D E R