IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1905 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.208/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.672/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... APPELLANT/REVISION PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV,S/O.MANIYAN, ARYA BHAVAN, NO.25, KERALA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, THOTTUVARAMBU VEEDU, NEAR KUSAMUTTAM BRIDGE,KURAVANKONAM WARD, KOWDIAR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER, SMT.M.JAYASREE. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1905 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused (A1) in C.C No.672/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thiruvananthapuram. He was prosecuted with another (A2) for the offence under Section 511 of 379 r/w 34 IPC on a report filed by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station. The petitioner (A1) alone was available for trial as the other accused had absconded. He had pleaded not guilty. Negativing his plea of not guilty, on his conviction, the learned Magistrate had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner had been turned down by the learned Sessions Judge, who affirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Other than the evidence of PW2 and PW5, the sons of PW1, the lady whose chain was attempted to be snatched away, there was no independent evidence to corroborate the version of PW1 implicating the petitioner (A1) in the offence inputed, is the submission of his counsel. Crl.R.P No.1905/2011 - 2 - Occurrence, according to the prosecution case occurred in the wee hours before sun rise and there is no convincing material to indicate that there was sufficient light at the spot to enable PW1 or her sons to identify the culprits involved, even assuming their version as to snatching away of the gold chain from PW1 at the time and place is taken as true, according to the counsel. Petitioner was apprehended at a far off place and not at the spot is also canvassed by the counsel contending that the defence pleaded by him that he had been falsely implicated in the crime owing to previous enmity of PW2 and PW5 , the sons of PW1, in view of trade union rivalries, despite evidence tendered by the accused getting himself examined as DW1 was not properly appreciated by both the courts and that, according to the counsel, has resulted in manifestation of injustice. The learned Sessions Judge, according to the counsel has gone to the extent of stating that the burden was on the accused when he had set up such a defence to prove his innocence. Conviction entered by the Magistrate against the accused, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge, is patently erroneous and unsustainable under law, submits the counsel. 3. I have gone through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any Crl.R.P No.1905/2011 - 3 - merit in the challenges raised by the counsel to assail the conviction entered against the revision petitioner/A1, concurrently by the two inferior courts. Occurrence in the case took place at about 5:30 A.M when PW1 was proceeding to a temple through a public road beside her house. At that point of time, two riders coming on a motor bike came beside her and then the pillion rider in that vehicle, who is stated to be the petitioner, tried to snatch away the gold chain worn by her. Failing in his attempt to snatch away the gold chain, he got down from the vehicle and then caught her by the neck and a scuffle ensued with the lady raising an alarm. Hearing her alarm, her sons, PW2 and PW5, and others reached the spot. By the time the rider of the vehicle (A2) sped away from the scene with the bike. Petitioner (A1) too ran away, but, he was chased by PW2 and others and apprehended and handed over to the police. The gold chain worn by PW1 was snatched from her neck and when others reached the spot, it was later retrieved close from the scene, is the prosecution version. Case of the prosecution as aforesaid, with some embroideries in the version of PW1, the victim, as corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW5, the sons of PW1, was found established on the materials placed, according to the learned Magistrate, who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of the witnesses while Crl.R.P No.1905/2011 - 4 - recording their testimony. The question then emerges for consideration is whether in a case of this nature insistence for corroboration for accepting the version of the victim who was subjected to an assault, in the course of snatching away her chain, is required. Corroboration after all is a rule of prudence and not of evidence. Whether corroboration is required or not, is the concern of the court to place reliance on the testimony of a witness examined before it. It cannot be stated that without corroboration the evidence of a witness, whatever be the nature of the offence, cannot be relied and acted upon. Further more, the evidence of PW2 and PW5, the sons of PW1, is not liable to be discarded for the reason that they are interested in the prosecution. It is not the interest in favour of the prosecution that is to be looked into, but, whether they have got any interest or animosity towards the accused to perjure against him before a court of law, so as to implicate him falsely in a grave crime. It is true that the accused had set up a defence that PW2 and PW5 had animosity towards him and on account of such animosity he had been falsely implicated in the crime. He had got himself examined in the case as DW1 to substantiate the defence. Even assuming for a moment that PW2 and PW5 had some animosity towards him, it is too much to imagine the police would also assist and aid the aforesaid Crl.R.P No.1905/2011 - 5 - witnesses to implicate an innocent person in a false crime. At any rate, the accused has not levelled any imputation or allegation against the police officer who registered the crime and also the one who later investigated the same and laid the charge before the court. The accused was apprehended close to the scene immediately after such occurrence and was handed over to the police is a tell tale circumstance indicating that he was one among the offenders involved in the incident. Further more it is also to be taken note, when subjected to such a ghastly incident, that too in the early morning hours, it would leave behind an indelible impression in the mind of the victim the features of the culprit, so as to remember him throughout her life. So much so, no identification parade was conducted during the course of the investigation, which is seen as one among the grounds canvassed before the courts below, to impeach the prosecution case, is also of no moment or value. It is seen that the statement of PW1 was recorded soon after the occurrence and by that time the accused was also taken into custody. When such be the case, the question of identification pales into insignificance. In fact, on the materials placed, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, this was a case where the offence under Section 379 IPC itself has been made out, but, on the charge laid for Section 511 of Crl.R.P No.1905/2011 - 6 - 379 IPC alone and trial proceeding as such, conviction was rendered for the offence indicted against the accused. Conviction of the accused is founded on unimpeachable legal evidence, and sentence awarded is also just and reasonable. Revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge