IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRL.A.No. 2143 of 2009(C) ------------------------- SC.153/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK -II, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS:- ---------------- SAJITH, C.NO.3850, BIJU, C.NO.3859, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. BY ADV. MR. MANSOOR.B.H [STATE BRIEF] RESPONDENT:- ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. B. JAYASOORYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. A. No. 2143 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, accused Nos. 1 and 4 (Sajith and Biju @ Appu) in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Alappuzha, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for an offence punishable under Section 402 IPC. 2. I heard Adv. Shri. Mansoor B.H., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants on State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. PW1 was an independent witness to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PWs 2 and 3 were the Head Constables who assisted PW5, the detecting officer. PW4 is the owner of one of the two motor bikes seized in this case. PW5 who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam, detected the Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 2 : offence. PW6 who succeeded PW5 completed the investigation and laid the final report before court. 4. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following:- On 15.02.2007, at about 5.45 p.m., PW3, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam got a credible secret information to the effect that 5 persons were conspiring together from the western side of Pattanipparambu. PW5 thereupon proceeded in his jeep to the said place in the company of PWs 2 and 3 who were Head Constables. The jeep was secretly parked at a place situated to the south of the compound which was situated near the Rotary Club. The police party then stealthily entered the Acacia garden in the compound and concealed themselves without being noticed by anybody. They found three of the accused persons sitting on a heap of rocks and two of them on two motor bikes, the registration numbers of which were KL 04 T 2309 and KL 2J 3857. From the conversation which PWs Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 3 : 2, 3 and 5 overheard, it came to their knowledge that the five accused persons were planning to loot an unknown person coming from Kozhikode to Kayamkulam bus stand with tube money. The accused persons were of the view that since the money carried by the unknown person from Kozhikode was itself ill-gotten money, he would not complain if he was robbed of the said money. Thereupon, PW5 and his police party converged on the five accused persons. Seeing the police party, the accused persons attempted to flee from there. In the hot chase that followed, A1 to A4 were apprehended. A5, however, successfully made good his escape. A1 was armed with MO1 chopper, A2 with MO4 sharp iron rod with handle and A3 with MO3 screw driver. On interrogating those accused persons, they had no satisfactory account for their possession on the aforesaid weapons. The police party also found two motor bikes and MO5 rod bending contrivance at the place of occurrence. They apprehended the 4 accused Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 4 : persons and the two motor bikes and all the weapons were seized under Ext.P1 seizure mahazar to which PW1 affixed his signature as an attestor. PW4 who is the owner of one of the two motor bikes, proved that his motor bike was stolen. This, in short, is the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 5. The facts of the case clearly show that the appellants along with the other accused persons, assembled together for the purpose of committing dacoity. A1 was unable to satisfactorily account for the possession of MO1 chopper. Two of the companions of the appellants were in possession of two motor bikes, both of which were stolen properties. The evidence indicated above clearly shows that the appellants along with their comrades were planning to rob an unidentified person coming with tube money from Kozhikode. As the appellants were unable to satisfactorily account for their presence at the place and also their possession of the aforesaid weapons, the Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 5 : conviction was rightly recorded against the appellants and I see no ground to interfere with the said conviction. 6. The sentence imposed on the appellant is also neither disproportionately harsh nor excessive particularly having regard to the fact that both the appellant are involved in other crimes as well. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the appellants. Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 6 : V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No. 2143 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- 18th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT Crl. Appeal No. 2143/2009 : 7 :