IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2740 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.296/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.1260/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH, S/O.RAVICHANDRAN, KARIKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MOOZHIKONE, KOTTATHALACHERY, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK (C NO. 3041 ,CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) BY ADV. SRI.B.DIPU SACH DEEV SRI.E.NISHAD SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2740 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September 2011 ORDER Revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C No.1260/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Varkala. He was prosecuted with another(A2) for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC. Both the accused has pleaded not guilty. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 379 and 471 IPC and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `.10,000/- under Section 379 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for six months more. Second accused was acquitted of the offences. Conviction and sentence imposed against the accused was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram without any modification, turning down his appeal. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused involved in the case in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of a maruthi car belonging to the de facto complainant, examined as Crl.R.P No.2740 OF 2010 - 2 - PW1 in the case. The car, which was kept in a car shed was stolen, after breaking open the locks of the car shed. On information given by PW1 over the theft, a crime was registered. While the investigation over the crime was pending, the revision petitioner (A1) was arrested by PW6, Sub Inspector of Police, Paravoor Police Station in connection with another crime. During his custodial interrogation, his involvement in the theft of the vehicle belonging to PW1 was revealed and thereupon, recording his disclosure statement, Ext.P7 (a), the stolen vehicle was recovered. Investigation revealed the complicity of the second accused and also the culpability of the accused in other offences under Section 468 and 471 as well. The theft of the vehicle, it was revealed, was carried out pursuant to common intention of the revision petitioner with the second accused, and, the latter had collected a false number plate from PW3. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and Exts.P1 to P9. The learned Magistrate, on the materials placed, was satisfied that the culpability of the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 379 and 471 IPC had been brought to home and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, concurring with the conclusion formed by the Magistrate, has Crl.R.P No.2740 OF 2010 - 3 - affirmed the conviction and also the sentence without any modification. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence let in by the prosecution is not sufficient to inculpate the accused for any of the offences imputed. 3. Perusing the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, the materials on record have been meticulously considered by both the courts to conclude that the accused was culpable of the offences imputed under Sections 379 and 471 IPC. So far as the theft of the vehicle belonging to PW1, there could not be any serious challenge. Even the accused has not set up any right of ownership or possession over the vehicle which was involved in the case. The evidence of PW1 corroborated by Ext.P1 First Information statement and Ext.P3 Scene Mahazar proves the theft of the vehicle. Then, the question is whether a theft was committed by the accused with or without association from any other person. The recovery of the vehicle was based on the disclosure statement given by the accused, has been proved by Ext.P7(a) and evidence of PW6, the Sub Inspector, who recorded that statement. It has also come out that the recovery of the vehicle was from the premises of the residence of first accused and he has not any explanation how the stolen car was parked in Crl.R.P No.2740 OF 2010 - 4 - such premises. When that be the case, the conclusion formed by the court below that he has committed theft, relying on the materials tendered by the prosecution, does not suffer from any infirmity. It has also come out that false number plates had been fitted to the stolen vehicle, for which also no explanation was given by the revision petitioner/accused. He was rightly convicted for the offences under Sections 379 and 471 IPC. 4. So far as the sentence imposed against the accused, having regard to the offences with which he was found guilty and convicted, sentence awarded cannot be considered excessive. No modification of the sentence is also called for. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge