IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3938 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.340/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)- III, MANJERI CC.569/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------------- RAJAGOPALAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, KAMBILIYIL, KOLAKATHU, KOLAKKATTUCHALIL, CHELEMBRA. BY ADV. MR. P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 3938 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. ORDER In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who was sole the accused in C.C. No. 569 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Sometime in between 11.45 p.m., on 31.03.2008 and 6.30 a.m., on 01.04.2008, the accused committed house breaking by night in the house of PWs 1 and 3 situated at Neduva Amsom, Koyamkulam and committed theft of gold ornaments, mobile phone and cash worth Rs.1000/- after breaking open the almirah in the bed room of the house. Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 2 : 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 offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8 and 5 material objects as Mos1 to 5. 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 14.10.2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him and sentenced him to rigorous Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 3 : imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months under Section 380 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months under Section 457 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 461 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 340 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) - III, Manjeri as per judgment dated 31.10.2009 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 4 : much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently 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. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Manjeri. In the report dated 12.03.2010, the District Probation Officer has noted that the petitioner is an accused in six different crimes of 4 different Police Stations for similar offences. But more pertinently the District Probation Officer has made the following observations:- Neighbours and localites opined that the petitioner is leading a law abiding and peaceful life in the locality. He had won lottery three or four times. His house construction is in progress and the major work is completed. Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 5 : Considering the family atmosphere, attitude of some well wishers and his own present attitude, the Probation Officer is of the view that there is a chance for character reformation and behaviour modification, if he is given proper guidance and counselling. Behaviour therapy is also needed to reform him. Hence, it is recommended that he may be released under the care of his brother for providing him proper treatment and he may be placed under the supervision of the District Probation Officer for follow up measures. 8. In the light of the above report of the District Probation Officer, instead of straight away pronouncing sentence on the revision petitioner, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to him to reform and lead the life of a law abiding and useful citizen. Accordingly, he is released on probation for a period of three years under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond before the trial court. The trial court shall Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 6 : also summon his brother Radhakrishnan to ensure that he is given proper treatment and counselling. During the period of probation, the revision petitioner shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Manjeri who shall take proper follow up measures to ensure that the revision petitioner does not return to his old habits. The petitioner shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi on 29.03.2010 for executing the bond. In the result, this revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv A photocopy of the report of the District Probation Officer shall be forwarded to the trial court for information and guidance. Crl.R.P. No. 3938/2009 : 7 :