IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1715 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.700/2008 OF V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.937/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL,S/O.MADHAVAN, OLIYANICKAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE. 2. HANEEFA, S/O. KOYAKKUTTY, VELAMMAKUDIYIL NJARUKUTTY KARA, KARIKKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1715 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No.700 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner for offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case is that on 9.10.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. petitioners snatched the gold chain P.W.1 was wearing and thereby committed the offence. P.W.1 gave evidence that on the relevant day and time she was going to her house and when she reached the place of occurrence a motor cycle came from the opposite side and stopped near her enquiring about the way to a nearby house. While she was talking to them petitioner No.2 who was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle snatched the gold chain she was wearing and which she identified as M.O.1. Then the motor cycle suddenly sped away. P.W.2, autorikshaw driver came there with his autorikshaw. P.W.1 told P.W.2 about what had happened. P.W.2 along with one Jose followed the motor cyclists. P.W.1 went to the police station and gave Ext.P1, first information statement at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. CRL. R.P. No.1715 of 2009 -: 2 :- P.W.2, autorikshaw driver has given evidence that on the relevant day and time when he reached the scene of occurrence P.W.1 told him about the incident. Himself and one Jose, Jeep driver went in search of the motor cyclists and caught them at Ezhalloor. He identified them as the petitioners. Police who got information about the incident came there and took petitioners to custody. P.Ws.2 and 3 also went to the police station. Police seized the gold chain (M.O.1) from the possession of petitioners. P.W.7 is an attester in Ext.P5, mahazar for seizure of motor cycle and the gold chain. P.W. 3 is the father of P.W.1. He along with P.W.1 went to the police station where the latter gave Ext.P1, first information statement. P.W.4 stated that he had given his motor cycle to petitioner No.2 as per a sale agreement and got advance from him. After the incident he got back the motor cycle on Kaichit (Ext.P3) from the trial court. P.W.6 is an attester in Ext.P4, mahazar for scene of occurrence P.W.5 is a goldsmith who verified M.O.1. P.W.8, Sub Inspector investigated the case. He claimed that he got information about the incident, reached the place and arrested petitioners. Petitioner No.1 produced the gold chain (M.O.1) and motor cycle seized as per Ext.P5. 3. It is contended that conviction of petitioners is not legal or CRL. R.P. No.1715 of 2009 -: 3 :- proper. According to learned counsel there is no reliable evidence to prove the incident. I have gone through the judgments under challenge. Prosecution has let in sufficient evidence to show that petitioners snatched the gold chain of P.W.1 on the relevant day. Involvement of petitioners in the incident is proved by the evidence which I have stated above. Courts below considered the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses and found that it is trustworthy and conviction is based on that assessment. I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioners. 4. Petitioners stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year each. 5. Report of the Probation Officer was called for on the antecedents and character of petitioners. So far as petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) is concerned it is seen from the report of Additional District Probation Officer that petitioner No.1 is not having good habits. It is seen that he is involved in other cases also. On going through the report I am not satisfied that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release him on probation as requested by learned counsel. 6. Counsel requested that sentence imposed on petitioner No.1 may be modified. I find from the report of the Additional District CRL. R.P. No.1715 of 2009 -: 4 :- Probation Officer that petitioner No.1 is involved in a series of offences. Having regard to the nature of offences committed I am not satisfied that sentence awarded to him is excessive and required modification. 7. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, report of the Additional District Probation Officer is in his favour. It is stated that he is not having any bad habits or criminal antecedents. According to the Additional Probation Officer, petitioner No.2 belonged to a poor family. He is attending regularly to his work and now leading a peaceful life. His family members are interested in his welfare. It is also stated in the report that need for money to meet the marriage expenses of his uncle’s daughter motivated him to raise money in a speedy way. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and report of the Additional District Probation Officer I am inclined to think that it is expedient to release petitioner No.2 on probation for a period of two years on executing bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. Resultantly, this revision is disposed of in the following lines: Revision petition to the extent it concerned petitioner No.2 is allowed in part. Instead of sentencing petitioner No.2 to imprisonment CRL. R.P. No.1715 of 2009 -: 5 :- as ordered by the courts below, it is directed that he shall be released on probation for a period of two years. Petitioner No.2 shall execute a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court within two months from this day undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond. It is directed that petitioner No.2 shall be under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Idukki, Thodupuzha for a period of two years. Learned magistrate shall issue necessary orders to the District Probation Officer in that regard. Revision to the extent it concerned petitioner No.1 is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv