IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 554 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.1153/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.316/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. BIJU, S/O.BALAN, PANANINNAVILA VEEDU, KAKKORUVILA NEAR KAPPIL HIGH SCHOOL, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE. 2. SHAJAR,S/O.SAINUDEEN, SAJEED MANZIL, PUNNAKULAM NEAR KAPPIL HIGH SCHOOL, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION,KALLAMBALAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.554 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.No.1153 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioners for offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 9.9.2002 at about 12 p.m. while PW1 was going along the road, petitioners came in an autorickshaw which was being driven by petitioner No.2, it was slowed down near PW1 and petitioner No.1 snatched the gold chain (MO1) she was wearing. PW3, Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala arrested the petitioners on 26.9.2002 in connection with Crime No.479 of 2002 of that Police Station and in the course of questioning he got information regarding the incident in the case on hand. He registered a case. Ext.P1 is the FIR. Ext.P2, token for pledging the gold chain was seized from the possession of petitioner No.1. PW3 transferred the case to Kallambalam Police Station for further action. PW3 has given evidence in that line. PW4, Head Constable of Kallambalam Police Station re-registered the case and PW5, Sub Inspector investigated it. Petitioners examined DW1 to show that petitioner No.1 has deformity to his arm. Crl.R.P.No.554/2009 2 2. PW1 had given evidence supporting the prosecution and identified MO1, gold chain which she lost. She also identified the petitioners as the culprits. PW2 is the manager of the bank. Her evidence is that petitioner No.1 pledged MO1 in her bank on 9.9.2002 for Rs.7,500/-. Ext.P2 is the token issued for that purpose. She identified petitioner No.1 and claimed that later she handed over MO1 to the Police. PW3, Sub Inspector has also given evidence regarding discovery of MO1 on the information given by petitioner No.1. The mere fact PW1 did not prefer any complaint is not sufficient to discard her evidence. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Evidence of PW1 would show that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 snatched her gold chain (MO1). Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 show that petitioner No.1 was found in possession of that gold chain. Evidence of DW1 is not sufficient to hold that petitioner No.1 could not lift his arm. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of petitioners in the incident. Courts below have considered the evidence and rightly found that petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Code. There is little reason to interfere. 2. So far as sentence is concerned, the report of the District Probationary Officer was called for. The District Probation Officer has reported that according to him this is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is admitted that petitioners are involved in other cases also. In these circumstances and also considering the nature of the Crl.R.P.No.554/2009 3 offence committed, I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence awarded. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.1687 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks