IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1795 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.16/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.250/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PANDAPPULAKKAL HAMZA, S/O.KUTTY MOHAMMED, AGED 35 YEARS, NARUKARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1795 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.250 of 1995 (Crime No. 282/1995) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 03.11.1994, at about 11 p.m., the revision petitioner/accused broke open into house No. V/245 belonging to PW1 at Pothukundu on the southern side of Makkaraparambu- Kozhikodeparamba road after gaining his entry into the house by forcing open the front door of the house using a pickaxe and committed theft of a gold chain weighing about three sovereigns and cash worth Rs.6000/- from an almirah which was kept locked. CRL.R.P. No. 1795/2008 :2: 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses as PWs 1 to 13 and got marked 11 documents as Exts. P1 to P11 and 4 material objects as Mos 1 to 4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 22.01.1996 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 457 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 380 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 461 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 16 of 1996 before the Sessions CRL.R.P. No. 1795/2008 :3: Court, Manjeri, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 12.06.2002 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 grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. Consequent on the confession made by the revision petitioner, MO1 gold ingot was seized by PW2 who though admitted that MO1 is not the ingot made after melting the particular gold ornament, confessed that he had purchased a gold chain with locket from the accused. Similarly, based on the confession made by the revision petitioner, currency notes worth Rs.2000/- were seized from PW6 who also admitted having received Rs.2000/- from the accused. There was also the evidence of the CRL.R.P. No. 1795/2008 :4: specimen fingerprints of the petitioner matching with the chance fingerprint obtained on MO3 plastic bottle found in the property though not inside the house. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question of adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submitted that the petitioner is an accused in two other similar cases namely Crime Nos. 286 of 1994 and 1061 of 2007 of the very same police station for similar offences and that he was convicted in Crime No. 286 of 1994. Such being the antecedents of the petitioner, I am not prepared to hold that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is either harsh or disproportionately excessive. 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. 1795/2008 :5: