IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 562 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.396/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM C.C. NO. 426/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACUSED:- -------------------------------------------- ARUN, S/O.ANI, BEENA BHAVAN, PANNIKUZHIKKARA, MANIKANTESWARAM WARD, VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:- ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.94/2006 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION) ADV. MR. C.M. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 562 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No.426 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 461 I.P.C., challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 19.03.2006, at about 10 a.m., the accused broke open into the Quarter No. 4 situated within the compound of the ESI Hospital, Peroorkada using a crow bar and after gaining entry into the said quarter, he broke open the almirah and locker and committed theft of a gold bangle weighing 4 sovereigns, another bangle weighing one sovereign, three small gold chains each of one sovereign, a ring of half a sovereign, a baby ring of 3 grams Crl.R.P. No. 562/2010 -:2:- and ear-drop of 3 grams and currency notes worth Rs.20,000/-. The accused has thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 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 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and 4 material objects as Mos1 to 4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 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 19.04.2007 found the accused guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days under Section 454 IPC, Crl.R.P. No. 562/2010 -:3:- rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 461 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days under Section 380 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 396 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 17.04.2008 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 judgments of the Courts below, I see little scope for interference. The findings recorded by the courts below are on the basis of appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. Both the courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses. Sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the concurrent findings. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts Crl.R.P. No. 562/2010 -:4:- below. This Revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner . His request for concurrency of the sentence under Section 427 Cr.P.C. along with the sentence imposed in C.C. No. 426 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram is disallowed, having regard to the fact that he is a habitual offender who is incapable of correction as has been reported in the report dated 10.03.2010 of the District Probation Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv