IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 881 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.738/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-II, THRISSUR CC.242/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- SIDDIQUE, CONVICT NO.5791, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. (FOR S.I. OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION). BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... Crl.R.P. No. 881 of 2008 ....................................... Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 242 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 28.10.1998, at about 1.30 p.m., PW1 Gopalan Nair was sitting behind his house. Then the revision petitioner/1st accused came there and enquired about the house of one driver Vasu. PW1 told him that he did not know such a person. Then A1 asked PW1 to give him a glass of water. PW1 went inside the house and came out with a glass of water and gave it to A1. After drinking the water, A1 returned the glass to PW1. While doing so, he snatched the gold chain worn by PW1 and pushed him down and decamped from there on the motorcycle driven by CRL.R.P. NO. 881/2008 :2: A2 who was waiting outside for A1. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and a gold-in-got as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 29.11.2004 acquitted the 2nd accused, but convicted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. For the said conviction, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three CRL.R.P. NO. 881/2008 :3: months. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 26.11.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. Hence, this Revision. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction contending inter alia that as held in (Titir Dusadh v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 Patna 453) the expressions “for that end” occurring in Section 392 IPC do not take in the act of causing hurt for escaping from the scene after the theft is committed. I cannot agree. The act of robbery is not confined only to the committing of the theft or extortion as the case may be. If in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint, he is stated to commit the offence of robbery. The evidence on record will show that after accepting the glass of CRL.R.P. NO. 881/2008 :4: water from PW1, A1 suddenly snatched the gold chain of PW1 and thereafter caused hurt to him while attempting to decamp from there. The purpose of escaping from the scene is only to ensure that he carries away the stolen property without any hindrance. The offence of robbery is complete only with the act of carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft. 7. Having regard to the fact that the offence was committed in a daring manner and having regard to the further fact that the petitioner is involved in other crimes of similar nature, I do not think that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is harsh or disproportionately excessive. This revision is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 881/2008 :5: