IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1058 of 2001 CRA.277/1995 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.148/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT-ACCUSED: MOHANAN, S/O ARULAPPAN NADAR, CHARUVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU JEDINJAL, VENNIYOOR DESOM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.1.2008, THE COURT ON 21/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 457 and 380 IPC by the trial court as well as the appellate court and convicted and sentenced thereunder. He contends that the courts below had committed serious illegality and irregularity in holding the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged against him. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that sometime during the night of September 3-4, 1992 petitioner/accused had committed house trespass into the residence of PW1 and stolen a male goat. The police after effecting recovery, had charge sheeted the petitioner. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 as well on its side. 3. The trial court, on a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge levelled against the petitioner and accordingly he was found guilty under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 2 :: imprisonment for one year each under the above two counts. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, concurred with the above finding and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was implicated in the crime due to political vengeance. Though the prosecution case was that PW1 had kept the goat inside the kitchen of his residence which was locked with chain and that house trespass was committed after breaking open the lock and cutting the chain, neither the lock nor the chain was recovered by the police. The further case of the prosecution was that the accused had carried the goat on a bicycle hired from PW3. But the cycle was neither seized nor was it produced before the court. Learned counsel lays heavy emphasis on the fact that PW1 had lodged the complaint only on September 8, 1992, five days after the alleged theft. PW4, the Constable attached to the Museum Police station had deposed before the court that he had seen the accused carrying a goat on his bicycle sometime during Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 3 :: the night on the alleged date of the incident while he was on patrol duty. His evidence revealed that on the alleged night of occurrence he was not on duty at all. There was material discrepancy in the date on which he was on duty. No document was produced to show that on the night of the incident he was in fact on patrol duty, it is contended by the learned counsel. 5. PW1, the de facto complainant had deposed before the court that he had been searching for his goat for 3 or 4 days after it was revealed on the morning of September 4, 1992 that it had been missing. He admitted that he lodged the complaint before the police only on September 8, 1992. Later, he was summoned by PW8, the S.I. of Police to the Police Station. He was shown a goat which he identified as his. PW3 had deposed that the accused had hired a cycle from his shop on September 3, and it was returned by the accused only on the next day. 6. As mentioned earlier, PW4 had seen the accused on the crucial night riding a bicycle with a goat. When PW4 had Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 4 :: taken the accused to the station, a colleague of his, namely Sri.Watson had stated that he knew the accused. Therefore, the accused was let off. PW8 had taken up the investigation after registering the crime on the basis of Ext.P1, First Information Statement. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that petitioner was involved in the crime. He came to the above conclusion after questioning PW3 and 4 and also PW6 and 7. The goat was recovered from the possession of PW7 who had allegedly purchased the same from the accused. 7. It is true that PW7 turned hostile. Similarly, PW6 who was a witness to the seizure mahazar did not support the prosecution. But significantly PW6 and 7 admitted their signatures in Ext.P4, recovery mahazar. PW8 had further deposed before the court that the stolen goat was recovered on the basis of the confession statement made by the accused. 8. Learned counsel has taken me through the depositions of the material witnesses referred to above. I have also perused the documents produced on the side of the Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 5 :: prosecution. It is true that the investigating officer had not bothered to seize the lock and chain which were found broken at the scene of occurrence for committing the theft. But I do not find any reason to disbelieve PW1, 4 and 8. It has to be remembered that in the case of any theft there may not be any direct evidence. But the evidence on record undoubtedly shows that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that there existed connecting links leading to the conclusion that the accused was the culprit. Though it has been vaguely suggested that the accused had been implicated in the case at the behest of Sri.Watson attached to the same police station, I am not persuaded to disbelieve PW1, 4 and 8. Though PW7 from whom the goat was recovered had turned hostile, he had admitted that he had signed in Ext.P4 recovery mahazar. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings entered by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the courts below against petitioner is confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 6 :: However, as regards the sentence imposed on the petitioner, I am of the view that some leniency is warranted. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was involved in any other crime. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed on the petitioner under the two counts shall stand modified. Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The sentence shall run concurrently. Petitioner shall be entitled to get the period of imprisonment undergone by him to be set off. Revision petition is allowed in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 :: 7 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1058 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 21st Jan. 2008