IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1195 of 2009 -------------------------------- CRA.83/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.253/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ SISUBALAN, S/O.BHARGAVAN (LATE), AGED 44 YEARS, C.NO.5553, CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR DIST. BY MS.M.A.BINDU, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. MR.RITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ========================== Crl.R.P.No.1195 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was found guilty for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.No.253/2000. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC. In Crl.Appeal No.83/2001, by judgment dated 10.08.2001, the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now this revision petition. 2. The revision petitioner was not defended by a lawyer. Adv.Smt.Bindu.M.A. was appointed as state brief to prosecute the revision petition. The learned counsel as well as the public prosecutor was heard. Records were perused. PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Valiyathura Police station while moving on patrol duty on 26.12.1994 at 5.p.m got an information that near Kochuveli church two persons were detained while attempting to sell stolen gold. He rushed to the spot and the revision petitioner and the another were taken custody. The revision petitioner was found possessing gold chain which he could not Crl.R.P.No.1195/2009 2 account. Therefore, suspecting to be a stolen property it was seized on the strength of mahazar which was marked as Ext.P2. The chain was marked as MO1. A case was registered against the revision petitioner as Crime No.241/1994 for offence under Section 41(1) (d) read with Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation, it was revealed that MO1 chain was stolen on 4.8.2004 at 2 a.m. after breaking open the house of PW1. It was snatched from the neck of PW1 who was sleeping. He filed a report which was marked as Ext.P4. After investigation he filed a charge sheet. 3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked. The revision petitioner when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C took up defence that he was falsely implicated. However, no defence evidence was let in. 4. The evidence of PW1 would show that at 2 a.m. on 4.8.1994 while she was sleeping inside the house somebody snatched the chain from her neck. When she woke up and cried aloud she saw the revision petitioner running away. She had Crl.R.P.No.1195/2009 3 identified the revision petitioner in the light of a zero watt bulb. She had identified MO1 as the chain that was snatched away from her neck. PW2, immediate neighbour of PW1 had deposed that at 2 a.m. on 4.8.1994 she heard a cry from the house of PW1. She opened the door and came out. Then the revision petitioner, who was familiar to her, was found running away. 5. PWs.4 and 5 were relied upon by the prosecution as if witness to recovery but they did not support the prosecution case. 6. Now to connect the revision petitioner with the offence alleged there is evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6. PW1 has no case that she was familiar with the revision petitioner. So, the evidence of PW1 that she had identified the accused in the dim light, as argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not believable. But, her evidence regarding the theft of MO1 remains uncontraverted. 7. The evidence of PW2 would show that immediately after the theft, the revision petitioner, who was known to her earlier, was found running away. There is no reason to disbelieve PW2. If the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are read Crl.R.P.No.1195/2009 4 together, as the lower courts correctly found, it was the revision petitioner who snatched away the chain at the midnight from PW1 after committing criminal tress pass to the house of PW1. The evidence of PW6 would show that the revision petitioner was found possessing MO1. Of course it is a little more than four months after the theft. But, it is crucial to note that the revision petitioner could not account the possession of MO1. He has no case that he was falsely implicated. Neither he has a case that MO1 was belonging to him nor that it was not seized from him. So, from the evidence of PW6 coupled with Ext.P4, I find that courts below had rightly come to a conclusion that MO1, which was snatched away from PW1 was recovered from the possession of the revision petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding theft is not at all believable because there was no complaint soon after the so called theft and that PW1 had come forward with a claim only after the recovery of MO1. PW1 had deposed that herself and her mother alone are residing in the house. In that circumstances, she did not complain to the police. The courts below had believed the Crl.R.P.No.1195/2009 5 explanation in the evidence of PW1. I find the explanation was rightly believed by the court below. The evidence on record would convincingly establish that the revision petitioner broke open the house of PW1 and snatched away MO1 gold chain worn by her. The courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion of guilt. The report of Probation Officer would show that the revision petitioner is involved in number of cases. Report of the Superintendent of Central Prision, Viyyur would show that the revision petitioner is convicted in 30 cases and he had been under the bars from 24.10.2006. In the above circumstances, I find that the sentence concurrently awarded by the courts below are not at all harsh. The revision petitioner deserves no leniency. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. dvs