IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1520 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.94/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- SUDHAKARAN @ SURESH, CONVICT NO.3646, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1520 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. ORDER In this revision filed from the Central Prison, Kannur, the petitioner who was the 1st accused in C.C. No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad 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. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 25.08.2001, at about 11 p.m., the two accused persons in prosecution of their common intention to commit theft and take the motorbike of PW2, kept in the porch of the residential house bearing No. 7/137 of Thenkurissi No.1 village, in the possession of PW1, committed theft of the motorbike bearing Registration No. KL9G 7175 parked in the porch of the said house. The accused have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 9 and 10 documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P10 and a motorbike was marked as MO1. CRL.R.P. NO. 1520/2008 : 2: 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. Both of them denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 06.12.2006 acquitted A2 of the said offence, but convicted A1, the revision petitioner herein of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Even though the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court as Crl. Appeal (Jail) No. 89 of 2007, as per judgment dated 02.08.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence this revision. 6. I herad Adv. Shri. Biju Martin, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor. The occurrence took place at about 11 p.m on 25.08.2001. The motorbike bearing registration No. KL9G 7175 owned by PW2 was stolen during night from the porch of the CRL.R.P. NO. 1520/2008 : 3: residential house of PW1 with whom the bike was entrusted for safe custody. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested at about 3.30 a.m on 28.10.2004 by PW7 while on patrol duty. Getting suspicious, PW7 questioned the revision petitioner (A1) who revealed the details of the motorbike. PW2, the owner of the vehicle had already lodged the First Information Statement before the Kuzhalmannam police on 27.08.2001. On 04.02.2005, police custody of the petitioner was obtained and on his confession the motorbike was seized from a place called Nadapunni where the vehicle was allegedly abandoned. Ext.P3 is the seizure mahazar prepared in that behalf. 7. Both PWs 1 and 2 have identified the motorbike when examined before court. The testimony of PW8, the Sub Inspector of Kuzhalkannam Police Station will clearly show that the motorbike was seized from Nadapunni on the confession of A1 who had led the police to the said spot on 04.02.2005 and the motorbike was seized under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. The fact that there are no independent witnesses to the mahazar does not in any way militate against the credible testimony given by PW8 with regard to the recovery of the motorbike which has been identified by PWs 1 and 2 as the two wheeler belonging to PW2 and which was parked in the porch of the house belonging to PW1. CRL.R.P. NO. 1520/2008 : 4: 8. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been entered after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, I see little scope for interference. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 9. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be excessive, having regard to the daring manner in which the offences were committed by the revision petitioner. In the result this revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1520/2008 : 5: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 1520 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- 5th day of June, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. NO. 1520/2008 : 6: