IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3681 of 2006(A) ------------------------------- CRA.148/2005 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA CC.372/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVICOLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS 3 AND 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAM, INCHAKKATTIL, MP 2/472, PULIKKARAVAYAL BHAGAM, MARAYOOR VILLAGE. 2. SELVAMANY, S/O. RAJANADAR, MP 5/434, DO., DO., DO. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.P. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKER. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.10429 OF 2006 IN CR.R.P. NO. 3681 OF 2006 DISMISSED 15/9/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 3681 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.A.148/05. Accused Nos.3 and 4 before the Magistrate Court were the appellants before that Court. Learned Magistrate, Devikulam convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellate court modified the sentence to one under Section 511 of 379 IPC and convicted them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one more month. Challenging that decision the revision petitioners have come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the prosecutor. The accusation against C.R.R.P. 3681 OF 2006 -:2:- the accused are that on 4.8.02 at about 2 a.m. they had cut one dried sandal wood tree from the Fathima Group estate and before it was removed, PW1 had followed and they left the wood there and had escaped. The trial court convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 379 IPC. The occurrence witness is only PW1 who is the manager of the Estate. PW3 who was the driver though had come to the spot had not identified the accused and therefore the only evidence is that of PW1 to connect the accused with the crime. PW1 had faced a searching cross-examination. In the chief- examination he had deposed before Court that he had seen the accused with the help of a powerful torch light and had submitted the statements for the purpose of registering the crime. He had also deposed that these persons were very familiar to him for the reason that they were working in that estate previously under his control. In the cross-examination what has been brought out is only that one person was wearing a lunki and another a banian. They are not contradictions at all. It is a settled position of criminal law C.R.R.P. 3681 OF 2006 -:3:- that it is the intrinsic reliability and inherent probability of evidence that adds weight to the acceptability of evidence given by a witness. PW1 had no axe to grind and he is expected to protect the interest of the estate. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had pointed out that in another appeal filed by the 2nd accused one of the Sessions Court had acquitted the said accused for want of evidence which made me to peruse the evidence meticulously in order to find out whether there is any probability of discarding the evidence of PW2 to arrive at a decision. On an over all analysis of the materials I find that it is trustworthy and it need not be doubted. It has to be stated that there is nothing to show that other crimes are registered against them. They are of young age and it is desirable that some leniency is shown to them so far as the sentencing is concerned. So I feel this is a fit case where the sentence can be further modified by deleting the sentence of imprisonment and retain the imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the CRRP is partly allowed and the sentence imposed on the C.R.R.P. 3681 OF 2006 -:4:- revision petitioners to undergo six months imprisonment is set aside and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of the same to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. If the fine is already collected, then further proceedings need not be continued. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-