IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 940 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.360/2004 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.234/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- BINU, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, MUTTAPPALAM, AZHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CR.NO.134 OF 2000 OF CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION). BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 940 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 234 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him for an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. The courts below acquitted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 461 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 19.08.2000 at about 1.30 p.m accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed lurking house trespass into the house of PW1 by breaking open the kitchen door of the said house and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing about 3 grams and other house hold items such as mixy, blanket, electric shaving set, tape- recorder and soaps altogether worth about Rs.10,000/- kept in CRL.R.P. NO. 940/2008 : 2: the Almira after breaking open the said Almira. The accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. On the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 6 and six documents were got marked as Exts. P1 to P6 and eight material objects were got marked as MOs 1 to 8. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were 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. 5. The learned Magistrate after trial as per judgment dated 30.06.2004 acquitted A2 of all the offences, but convicted A1, the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 360 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as CRL.R.P. NO. 940/2008 : 3: per judgment dated 26.03.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence this revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various ground the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner including the factum of acquittal of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 461 as also the acquittal of A2, with regard to the conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 380 IPC, both the courts below have entered the said conviction after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction recorded by the courts below both of which cannot be said to be erroneous in the appreciation of evidence. The conviction recorded against the revision petitioner is accordingly confirmed. 7. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionately harsh having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that there are three CRL.R.P. NO. 940/2008 : 4: other cases in which the petitioner is involved in similar other offences and that he is a habitual offender. This fact also reaffirms the conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the courts below. I see no ground to interfere with the conviction recorded and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. This revision is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 940/2008 : 5: