IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 6 of 2000() --------------------------- CRA.410/1998 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.879/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- RAMESHAN S/O.VALLON, THERTHANAMKUDY HOUSE, KARINGAZHA KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE SRI.FRANCIS MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B JAYASURYA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/ 08/ 2009, THE COURT ON 06/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No. 6 of 2000 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 . ORDER This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Section 451 and 380 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. In appeal, the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but the sentence for offence under Section 380 IPC alone was modified and reduced to one year. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. According to prosecution, on 22.3.1996, the revision petitioner broke open the house of PW1 and committed theft of god chain from the neck of PW1, who was sleeping inside the house and also MO2 two studs and a watch kept on the table. 3. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 and MOs. 1 and 2 were marked on the side of prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted [Crl.R.P.6/2000] 2 that he is innocent while questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court found that there is evidence that accused had committed trespass in order to commit theft. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed under Section Section 451 of IPC. Both the courts found that evidence of PW5, the investigating officer, relating to the recovery of stolen article is believable and hence drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence it was held that the accused committed theft. 4. At the time of hearing, there was nobody to argue the case on behalf of revision petitioner. His counsel and petitioner were absent. Hence, I have gone through the records and the judgments of the courts below. Conviction under Section 380 IPC is entered by drawing presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act on finding that the accused was in possession of stolen articles. This finding was entered on the basis of evidence of PWs 1 and 5 and information given by the accused to PW5, the investigating officer pursuant to which recovery of the stolen articles MO1 and MO2 was effected. [Crl.R.P.6/2000] 3 5. The courts below rightly found that there was nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW5 police official. It is true that no independent witness supported the prosecution. But there is no rule that the evidence of a police officer should be recorded in the absence of independent corroboration. The courts below found that no motive is alleged against the investigating officer to foist a false case against accused. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the findings of courts below in respect of recovery effected as disclosed from the evidence of PW5. 6. From the evidence of PW5, it is seen that the accused stated to him that he had given the gold chain to a person at Kothamangalam and he would show the person who purchased the chain and also the shop and accordingly, PW5 reached the shop. MO1 was produced by PW3 who was running the shop and MO1 was seized under Ext.P1 Mahazar. The conduct of the accused in leading the investigating officer to the shop of PW3 and the statement that he had given MO1 chain in the shop at Kothamangalam are disclosed from evidence and this [Crl.R.P.6/2000] 4 will lead to the inference that accused was in possession of MO1 chain which was identified by PW1 as the stolen chain. The accused has not explained how MO1 came to the possession of accused and how he happened to sell it to PW3. 7. MO2, the gold studs were seized under Ext.P2 mahazar pursuant to a statement given by the accused to PW5 that he had hidden the same. As rightly held by the court below, there is no explanation for the possession of MOs 1 and 2 and the possession being a recent one the presumption was drawn especially since the accused had no explanation for the possession. 8. At any rate, no perversity in the findings could be gathered on a reading of the evidence and judgments. From the evidence given by PW5 and Ext.P1 (a) and the recovery MO1 and MO2, it can be inferred that the accused was in possession of stolen gold chain and his conduct in leading to the shop of PW3, who had purchased MO1 from him will also reveal the conduct of the accused and it would prove that he [Crl.R.P.6/2000] 5 was in possession of stolen article. Even if the evidence adduced by PW5, strictly speaking, falls under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, such evidence will establish that the accused was in possession of the article and his conduct is also incriminating. 9. The evidence of PW1 shows that she was sleeping in the house during night and somebody had pushed her down and stolen the chain. But such person could not be apprehended at the time of offence. She also stated that a watch and MO2 which were kept in the house were also stolen. The room was not locked from inside, but it was only kept shut. Therefore, the court convicted the accused under Section 451 of IPC. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction passed under Section 451 IPC in the light of evidence adduced in this case. 10. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence passed. The sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced by learned Sessions Judge and the present sentence cannot be said to be excessive. [Crl.R.P.6/2000] 6 In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner are confirmed. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.