IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3402 of 2008() --------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.371/2005 OF ADDL.DISTRICT SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN C.C.NO.1161/04 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, VARKALA. ................ REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT:ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JEEVA,D/O.LATHIKA,KATTUVILA VEEDU, PAZHANCHIRA,MELKADAKAVOOR DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT:STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3402 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C. 1161 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala. Prosecution case was that accused 1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of MO1 gold chain, belonging to PW1 on the night of 31.3.2004 at about 12.15 pm after trespassing into the house of PW1 and through 4th accused, pledged the stolen article to Chirayinkil Service Co-operative Bank and petitioner pledged the chain with the knowledge that it is a stolen article and therefore all the accused committed the offence under Section 457, 380 and 411 read with 34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked five exhibits and identified MO1. After questioning accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, though called for, petitioners did not adduce any evidence. 2. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence found the accused guilty. Accused 2 to 3 were convicted and CRRP 3402/2008 2 sentenced for the offence under Section 457 and 380 IPC. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 411 IPC. She was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner, along with accused 1 and 2, challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.371 of 2005. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, acquitted second accused but confirmed the conviction of first accused. Confirming the conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of IPC, sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The argument of learned counsel is that there is no evidence to prove that petitioner obtained MO1 chain with the knowledge that they are the stolen articles and therefore conviction of the petitioner for the offence CRRP 3402/2008 3 under Section 411 IPC is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that petitioner obtained the property from second accused and when second accused was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge conviction of petitioner is not sustainable. Finally, it was argued that considering the nature of the offence, sentence awarded is excessive. 5. Evidence of PW1 establish that MO1 is the stolen gold chain. It was recovered under Ext.P2 recovery mahazar by PW8 the Investigating Officer, based on the information furnished by accused 1 and 4. Evidence of PW8 establish that on questioning the first accused and getting information that it was transferred through 4th accused and as led by 4th accused they reached Chirayinkil Service Co-operative Society from where PW5, Manager produced MO1, which was recovered under Ext.P2. Though learned counsel argued that petitioner had purchased the gold chain from second accused and when second accused was acquitted her conviction is not sustainable, it is clear that MO1 could be recovered only on the basis of the information furnished by first accused CRRP 3402/2008 4 and then by the petitioner. There was no case for the petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that she purchased MO1 from second accused. Evidence of PW5 establish that it was along with the other accused, petitioner went to the Bank and pledged MO1. In such circumstances, finding of the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge that MO1 was pledged by petitioner and she obtained possession of the property and then pledged it with the knowledge that it is a stolen article is absolutely correct. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of IPC is threfore legal and correct and warrants no interference. 6. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Section 411 IPC provides for a sentence of imprisonment which may extent to three years or fine or both. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months which was reduced by learned Sessions Judge in appeal to three months. Learned Public Prosecutor on verification submitted that petitioner was not involved in any other case. In such circumstances, interest of justice will be met if the CRRP 3402/2008 5 substantive sentence is reduced to one month in addition to a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 7. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC is confirmed. Sentence is modified and petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner is entitled to set off for the period she was in custody during trial and subsequent to the conviction. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-