IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2673 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.107/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.325/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5: ----------------------------------------------------- NELLIMATTOM VEETTIL BEERAN S/O.ASSAINAR, 38 YEARS, AMBAYATHODE, THAMARASSERY BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STASTE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2673 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner who is the 5th accused in C.C. No. 325 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 342, 457 and 380 r/w Section 120 and 149 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 1 to 8 to steal the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma and Madhava Menon exhibited in the premises of Krishna Menon Museum and Art Gallery and sell the same to foreigners and thereby earn fabulous income and in prosecution of the said common object, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly by A1 to A7 travelling in a jeep to the premises of the said art gallery and A1 to A5 committing lurking CRL.R.P. NO. 2673/2008 :2: house trespass by night by entering the said museum between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m on 01.08.1992, after locking up the watchman (CW5) in his room. They then broke open the room in which the paintings were kept and committed theft of 5 paintings and thereafter they concealed the above paintings in a grave situated in the property belonging to A8. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 20 witnesses as PWs 1 to 20 and got marked 19 documents as Exts. P1 to P19 and 11 material objects as Mos. 1 to 11. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. CRL.R.P. NO. 2673/2008 :3: 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 05.06.1997 found accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 120 B IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 342 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for three years under Section 457 r/w Section 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for three years under Section 380 r/w Section 149 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and the other convicted accused persons before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode as Crl. Appeal Nos. 103, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 201 of 1997, the lower appellate court as per common judgment dated 30.04.1998 allowed the appeals of A7 and A8 who were acquitted of the offences, but confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the remaining accused persons including the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the CRL.R.P. NO. 2673/2008 :4: 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 is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In as much as this Court in Crl. R.P. Nos. 777 and 845 of 1998 and 1334 of 2002 has modified the sentence imposed on the co-accused, I see no reason why the petitioner should not be treated alike. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as below:- For the conviction under Section 120 B IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 342 r/w Section 149 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay CRL.R.P. NO. 2673/2008 :5: the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 457 r/w Section 149 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 380 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner will be entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 2673/2008 :6: