IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1878 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.344/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CC.489/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- RAVEENDRAN, S/O.VENKATESWARA PAI, CONVICT NO.2659, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. M.P.PRASANTH(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P.No.1878 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by a prisoner in custody who has been concurrently found guilty by the trial court as well as the appellate court under Section 457 and 379 I.P.C. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under both counts. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that the accused had, with an intention to commit theft, trespassed into the house of PW1 by removing the tiles on the roof and committed theft of a gold chain from the body of PW2. The gold chain weighing six and a half soverings was worth Rs.19,500/=. Petitioner had allegedly committed the above offence at about 3 a.m on May 8, 1995 from the residence of PW1 at Keezhmadu. 3. Prosecution had examined Pws 1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. PW1, the defacto complainant, deposed that he had given Ext.P1 First Information Statement regarding the incident which took place in the early hours of May 8, 1995. He heard his wife (PW2) cry out stating that her gold chain has been stolen. MO1 gold chain was shown to PW1 after about 6 to 7 months from the police station. PW2, the wife of PW1, deposed that the gold chain was stolen from her body while 2 Crl.R.P.No.1878/04 she was asleep. PW6, who conducted investigation, deposed before the court that when he had questioned the petitioner in connection with Crime No.421/1996, he had confessed that he committed this offence also. The accused had informed the investigating officer that he had sold the gold chain to one Jose at Thrissur. On questioning Sri. Jose, it was revealed that he had sold the gold chain to one Habeeb Rahman. Later, the gold chain was produced before the police by Sri. Habeeb Rahman. The gold chain was identified by Pws 1 and 2. The trial court as well as the appellate court had meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record and found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner. 4. I have also carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the deposition of the material witnesses. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl 3 Crl.R.P.No.1878/04 A.K.BASHEER, J. CRL.R.P.No.1878 OF 2004 O R D E R 17th December, 2008