IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1503 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.190/2001 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1322/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- PRADEEP, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VYTHIRI VEEDU, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.N.G.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE A.S.I. OF POLICE, E.T.SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2003 ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who was the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 1322 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 24.07.1999, at about 12'o clock in the night, the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft of a Susuki motorcycle bearing registration No. KL.4.B.7236 from the house of PW1 at Indira Nagar in Kadavanthra, Ernakulam, committed theft of the same and have thereby committed the aforementioned offence. CRL.R.P. NO. 1503/2003 :2: 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 4 witnesses as PWs 1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 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 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 24.02.2001 acquitted the 1st accused but convicted the revision petitioner/2nd accused of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 190 of 2001 before the CRL.R.P. NO. 1503/2003 :3: Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 16.12.2002 disposed of the appeal confirming the conviction entered but reducing the rigorous imprisonment to six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month giving set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will CRL.R.P. NO. 1503/2003 :4: be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. The motorcycle in question was seized at the instance of the revision petitioner as per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar and handed over to PW1 on kaichit. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and is leading a peaceful life after getting married and is a law abiding citizen. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead the pre-trial custody already undergone by the petitioner as well as the fine imposed by the lower appellate court together with the default sentence shall be the sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. The petitioner is given one month's time from today to deposit the fine amount before the trial court, failing which he shall undergo the default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1503/2003 :5: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. 1503 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- 22nd day of July, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. NO. 1503/2003 :6: