IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2480 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.583/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.475/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. NJANAPRAKASH, S/O.SOURIMUTHU, 26 YEARS, UPADESI HOUSE, PARASICKAL, VADAKARAPATHI, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2480 of 2008 =================== Dated: 19.08.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.475 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Chittur for offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 461 challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 16.3.03 at about 12 noon the revision petitioner with the intention of committing theft committed lurking house trespass into the house of PWs 1& 2 at Cheriyakalliyampara after breaking open the lock of the back door and committed theft of 2 gold studds weighing ¾ sovereigns, worth Rs.2500/- kept inside the almirah of the bed room. The accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P.No.2480 of 2008 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and 3 material objects as MOs. 1 to 3. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 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 2.12.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences. For the conviction under Section 454 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, for the conviction under Section 461 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and for the conviction under Section 380 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.583 of 2005 before the Crl.R.P.No.2480 of 2008 -:3:- Sessions Court, Palakkad, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 20.06.08 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. This is a case in which the house breaking as well as theft were committed in broad daylight around 12 noon on 16.8.03. In fact, PW1, who is the de facto complainant, was returning home from the paddy field at about 12.30 p.m. He found the accused coming out of PW1's house. When he enquired about his presence there he gave some false excuses. After reaching home PW1 discovered that the rear door of his house was kept open and his house had been burgled. He went to the Kozhinjanpara Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 F.I.Statement. During the course of investigation, PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjanpara Police Station arrested the accused from Kozhinjanpara town on 18.8.03. Based on Ext.P4 confession made by the accused, PW8 effected recovery of MOs 1 and 2 as per Ext.P3 Seizure mahazar. PWs1 and 2 have clearly identified the aforesaid MOs as the properties which Crl.R.P.No.2480 of 2008 -:4:- were stolen from their house. This evidence has been concurrently accepted by the courts below so as to record the conviction against the revision petitioner. The conviction has been recorded by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 8. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionately excessive. Having regard to the daring manner in which the offence was committed, penal servitude by way of incarceration alone will serve as an effective disincentive to such daring offenders. If at all, the lower appellate court has erred that was on the side of leniency in the sentence. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction entered and the sentence passed. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 19 th day of August, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2480 of 2008 -:5:-