IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 603 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.110/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-I, ALAPPUZHA CC.1356/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------ SONY, S/O.JOSE, KALARIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.XXIV, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN MR. M.D.SASIKUMARAN MR. GEORGE MATHEW MR. DIPU JAMES RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 603 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1356 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala for an offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 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 18.10.2006, at about 1 a.m., A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft of two bicycles, criminally trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant and committed theft of two BSA bicycles kept in the car porch of the residential building of the de facto complainant within the limits of Cherthala Police Station. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:2:- offence, 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 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and two material objects as Mos. 1 and 2. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 23.01.2009 acquitted A3, but convicted A1 and A2 and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 379 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track -I, Alappuzha as per judgment dated 18.12.2009 confirmed the conviction entered against the revision petitioner but reduced the Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:3:- sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. It is the said judgment which is assailed in 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 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 as to whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the lower appellate court is disproportionately harsh or excessive. This Court called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Alappuzha. As per the report dated 09.03.2010, the District Probation Officer has, inter alia, reported that the revision petitioner is not having a criminal background and that he got involved in this occurrence due to lack of education and economic struggles in the family besides friendship with undesirable Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:4:- elements. The District Probation Officer has recommended the release of the petitioner on probation for at least two years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on probation for a period of three years. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 29.03.2010 and execute a bond for a period of three years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer for the entire period of three years. The Magistrate shall fix the other conditions including the periodicity of the appearance before the District Probation Officer. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:5:-