IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 607 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.724/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.665/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------- KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.SOMAN PTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KAMALESWARAM WARD MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM KOCHUTHOTTATHIL ,PRAYATHEKKUM MURI CHEPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No. 607 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the first accused in C.C.No.665 of 2003 on the file of J.F.C.M, Kayamkulam for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and sentenced passed against him by the courts below. Even though the 2nd accused was acquitted by the lower appellate court, the conviction and sentence against the petitioner was confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution as unraveled by the oral and documentary evidence is the following: Sometime in the mid night of 11.07.03, the petitioner and the 2nd accused committed house breaking with the intention of committing theft and after gaining entry into the house of PW1 within the limits of Kayamkulam Police Station by breaking open the door using a screw driver they committed theft of one Aiwa brand Television(MO1) and one Ajantha Quartz Clock(MO2) from that house bearing building No.IX/316 of Krishnapuram Village. 3. The main evidence against the revision petitioner was Crl.R.P.No.607 of 2008 2 his own confession statement ( Ext.P3(a) ) leading to the recovery of MOs 1 and 2 under Ext.P3 Recovery Mahazar. PW1, the person from whose house those articles were stolen, has identified those articles as belonging to him. Such being the position, I see no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 4. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The courts below have sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC and simple imprisonment for 1 ½ years for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. 5. Having regard to the antecedents of the revision petitioner and the daring manner in which the offence was committed during the midnight, I see no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as well. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj