IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 880 of 2000(R) ------------------------------ CC.349/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR C.C.163/97 & 166/97 OF 2ND ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. RAHMAN, S/O MEERAN, ERAKKANCHIRA, PLACHIKULAMBU, KIZHAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR. 2. BYJU @ KOCHU, S/O PAPPACHAN, IDATHAYIL VEEDU, KURUKKANTHARISSU, KORANCHIRA. 3. MURALI @ MURALIDHARAN, S/O APPUNNI, PLACHUKULAMBU VEEDU, KIZHAKKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY (CRIME NO.185/93). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.4659/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO.880/2000 //DISMISSED// 02.04.08 SD/- (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) A.K.BASHEER,J. ----------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.880 OF 2000 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners were tried for offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation that they along with another had broken open the lock of a tailoring shop belonging to PW1 and committed theft of 2 pants, 9 pant pieces, 1 shirt, shirt pieces, 2 iron boxes, 1 table fan, etc. on the night of May 13, 1993. The total value of the articles stolen from the shop was assessed at Rs.7,610/-. 2. The petitioners faced trial, while accused No.4 was absconding. The trial court found the petitioners guilty under sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The appellate court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners CRL.R.P.No.880/2000 -2- that the courts below were not justified in holding the petitioners guilty on the basis of the totally unreliable and scanty evidence adduced by the prosecution. He points out that Pws 4, 6 , 7 and 8 who had allegedly witnessed the recovery of the stolen articles under Exhibits P3, P4, P5 and P6 seizure mahazars had turned hostile. There was no other evidence to support the version given by PW1, the shop keeper. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the original of Exhibit P3 seizure mahazar never saw the light of the day. The prosecution had produced only a carbon copy of the seizure mahazar. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was totally unreliable and irregular. 4. The learned counsel has taken me through the depositions of the material witnesses. I have perused the relevant documents also. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the witnesses to the seizure mahazars had admitted their signature in those documents, though they were declared hostile since they did not subscribe to the version given to the Police that they witnessed the seizure. The evidence of PWs 1 and 10 with regard to the essential aspects of the case was corroborated by the evidence of the other CRL.R.P.No.880/2000 -3- witnesses. Thus the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioners. The courts below had evaluated the oral and documentary evidence in their proper perspective. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in the revision petition. Therefore it is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. dsn