IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 993 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRLAPPEAL NO..275/2005 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.72/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES, S/O.BABY, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, THIRUVANIKKAVU, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 994 OF 2008 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.REV. PET. NOS.993, 994, 997 998, 999, 1000, 1001 & 1002 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R ----------- In these Revisions filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code the common petitioner, who is the first accused in C.C. Nos.72, 76, 73, 75, 71, 79 of 2003 and 164 of 2005 and 74 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chittur, for an offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On different dates in the year 2001-2002 during night hours the two accused persons, namely the revision petitioner and one Mr.Pazhaniswami, in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft dishonestly removed copper wire from the catchment area of Chulliyar Dam at Muthalamada CRL. R.P. NO.993 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES -: 2 :- Panchayat within the limits of Kollangode Police Station. The copper wire removed in all the 8 cases altogether weighed 77 Kgs. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offence. 3. Second accused Pazhaniswami was absconding and the revision petitioner alone faced the trial. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the Magistrate, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. In C.C. Nos.75 of 2003 and 164 of 2005 the prosecution altogether examined 4 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4. In C.C. Nos.72, 76, 73, 79 and 74 of 2003, the prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and in C.C. No.71 of 2003 the prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6. Prosecution also got marked 7 documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. 4. After the close of 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. CRL. R.P. NO.993 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES -: 3 :- 5. The learned Magistrate, after separate trial, by separate judgments found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. On appeal by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal Nos.275, 276, 274, 210, 371, 212, 450 and 211 of 2005 respectively before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the said court as per separate judgments dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence these revisions. 6. I heard Shri K.K. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in all these revisions and Advocate Shri C.M. Nazar, the learned Public Prosecutor, who defended the State. 7. Except for the fact that various quantities of copper wire was seized at the instance of the revision petitioner pursuant to his confession falling under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has not let in any evidence to show who actually committed the theft along with the absconding second accused. In the absence of any evidence CRL. R.P. NO.993 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES -: 4 :- to indicate that the revision petitioner had a role to play in the act of committing theft of copper wire from the catchment area of Chulliyar Dam as alleged by the prosecution, he could at best be considered as a recipient of stolen properties within the meaning of Section 411 Cr.P.C. in view of the provision under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Revision petitioner is said to be a scrap merchant at Mannuthy in Thrissur District. Accordingly, the conviction entered under Section 379 is altered to one punishable under Section 411 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is convicted thereunder. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Considering the fact that the stolen property belonged to the Government and the copper wire had been installed on the electric post in the catchment area of Chulliyar Dam, I do not think that the sentence imposed by the courts below is harsh or disproportionately excessive. It was ascertained through the learned Public Prosecutor as to whether the revision petitioner was involved in any other similar case. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, CRL. R.P. NO.993 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES -: 5 :- submitted that the revision petitioner has no other antecedents except these 8 cases. If so, I see no reason why concurrence in the sentence should not be granted to the revision petitioner under Section 427 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petitioner shall undergo sentence in all the above 8 cases concurrently. In the result, these revisions are disposed of upholding the conviction entered and confirming the sentence, but modifying the mode of enjoyment of the sentence in all the cases. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. vsv