IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3366 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.686/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM AND JUDGMENT DTD 13.10.06 IN CC.1426/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- BINU, S/O. JOSHY, AGED 36 YEARS, KNIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PUTHUVAL BHAGAM, KOTHALAKARA, KOOROPADA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.C.A.CHACKO MS.C.M.CHARISMA MS.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTING S.I. OF POLICE,MANNARCADU TOWN EAST, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3366 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who appeared for respondent. 2. Petitioner, it is concurrently found committed lurking house trespass into the house of PWs.1 and 4 on 09-07-2002 at about 1.30a.m and attempted to commit theft of gold chain worn by PW4. Petitioner is aggrieved and challenge that concurrent finding. 3. Case is that on 09-07-02 at about 1.30 p.m petitioner committed lurking house trespass in the house of PWs.1 and 4 by opening the rear door of the house and attempted to commit theft. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Secs.457 and 511 of 380 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed conviction and sentence. It is contended by learned counsel that evidence of PWs.1 and 4 cannot be accepted as it is contradictory. As per the evidence of Pws.1 and 4, petitioner managed to open the rear door of the house, stealthily entered the house and attempted to snatch the gold chain PW4 was wearing. PW3 is the ASI. He claimed that on getting information on 09-07-02 at about 1.40 a.m that Crl.R.P.No.3366 of 2007 2 petitioner is caught red handed and detained in the house of PW1, himself and party went there and found the petitioner tied with a sari and rope and detained in the house of PW1. PW1 gave statement to PW3 (Ext.P1), based on which case was registered. Ext.P2 is the mahazar for scene of occurrence. 4. As against the above version of PWs.1,3 and 4, petitioner stated when questioned under Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that he had been for a second show, had consumed liquor and wanted to go to his uncles house at Vadavathoor As he was under the influence of liquor he slept in the bus and got down at Madhavanpady bus stop. While he was going along the road police party came along. He hid himself behind the house of PW1. His hand happened to hit the door. People in the house came to that spot with iron rod and beat him. As against that plea what was suggested to PWs.1 and 4 is that petitioner had been to their house at 8 p.m demanding wages for the lamination work done by him and he was attacked. Learned counsel argues that though PWs.1 and 4 have a case that a portion of the gold chain snatched by the petitioner was taken back by them from his pocket, there was no such case told to the investigation officer in the course of investigation. Learned magistrate has taken note of that and found that petitioner only attempted to snatch the gold chain worn by PW4. It is accordingly that petitioner was found guilty under Sec.511 of Sec.380. I am unable to accept the version of petitioner as to how Crl.R.P.No.3366 of 2007 3 he happened to be behind the house of petitioner as claimed by him. I do not find reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 4. Courts below rightly found petitioner guilty under Secs.457 and 511 of Sec.380 of the Code. Interference is not called for . 5. So far as sentence is concerned, it is not shown that petitioner is involved in any other case . At the same time, his conduct of stealthily entering into the house of PWs.1 and 4 in the night and attempting to snatch the gold chain cannot be viewed slightly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am satisfied that simple imprisonment for three months each is sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly this revision is allowed to the extent that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment for a period of three months (3) on each count which shall run concurrently. Period of detention if any undergone will be set off against the sentence awarded. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/