IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1304 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.465/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.1385/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- ALI, S/O.KUNHIBAVA, AGED 49 YEARS, KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, PUTHIYARUTHI, KOTHAMUKKU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P. SRI PUSHPALATH M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1304 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 19th Day of May, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.1385 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad and the appellant in Crl.A.No.465/2007 of the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, (Adhoc) Thrissur. In this Crl.Revision Petition, he challenges the concurrent finding of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and his conviction under section 379 of IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case against the revision petitioner/accused is that on 11.9.2001 in the early morning hours, when PW3 boarded a bus from Pavaratty to Kunnamkulam, the purse which was kept in the pocket of his shirt for paying money for the ticket, was stolen and same was seen held by the revision petitioner-Ist accused as well as other accused and when PW3 raised a hue and cry, they alighted at a stop near Perakom church. When CRL.R.P. No.1304/10 -:2:- PW3 approached and asked them to return the purse as well as the amount contained therein, they refused to pay the same and took to their heels. The local people and PW3 chased them in an auto rickshaw and they were apprehended and taken to the Chavakkad police station. Based on Ext.P2 F.I Statement of PW3, the FIR was registered. During the search of the body of the revision petitioner, PW4 took a sum of Rs. 490/- and the same was taken into custody and Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and PWs 1 and 2 signed therein as witnesses. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, that consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and the documentary evidence such as Ext.P1 to P3, the trial court has found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence under section 379 against the revision petitioner/Ist accused, but no offence was proved against the 2nd accused. Thus, the trial court convicted the revision petitioner/Ist accused, for the offence under section 379 and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was CRL.R.P. No.1304/10 -:3:- given the benefit of set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.465/2007 in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Thrissur, but the same were confirmed and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The present revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the courts below. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused and also contended that no offence is proved against the revision petitioner as the police failed to recover the purse allegedly taken by the first accused from the pocket of PW3. The trial court has specifically found on the basis of the evidence of PW1 that the accused was taken to the police station with the help of the local people and on questioning the revision petitioner, he produced the stolen money. It is true that the purse was not recovered from the revision petitioner. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 also supported the CRL.R.P. No.1304/10 -:4:- recovery of the money from the Ist accused though PW1 failed to correctly point out the revision petitioner/accused. When PW2 was examined, who was along with PW1 when money was recovered from the revision petitioner in the police station, correctly identified the revision petitioner/Ist accused. The trial court has correctly observed that though PW1 has committed a mistake in identifying the revision petitioner, that will not affect the other evidence on record. PW4, the Asst. Sub Inspector of police who conducted the search of the body of the accused deposed that money was recovered from first accused. The trial court with the help of section 114 of the Evidence Act held that the first accused failed to give any explanation regarding the money recovered from his possession immediately after the incident. In the light of the above finding of fact by the trial court which approved by the lower appellate court, I find no merit in this Revision. Since the sentence is only for a period of one year and set off was allowed, there is no scope for interference with the CRL.R.P. No.1304/10 -:5:- sentence also awarded against the revision petitioner. In result, there is no merit in this Crl.Revision Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P. No.1304/10 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..