IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 719 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.637/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1066/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- ANZAR, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, ANZARI NIVAZ, SAKKEER HUSSAIN NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 719 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the 1st accused in C.C. No.1066 of 2002 (Crime No. 693 of 2002 of Kollam East Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft, broke open the ceiling of the house of PW1 at about 11.45 p.m., on 08.05.2002 and trespassed into the said house and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 15 grams, 3 gold bangles and a gold ring weighing 930 milli grams from the almirah kept inside the house. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P. No. 719/2010 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 4 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and 4 material objects as Mos1 to 4. 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 15.11.2006 found the second accused not guilty of all the offences and found the revision petitioner also not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 IPC, but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. For the said conviction, the revision petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 637 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the learned Sessions Crl.R.P. No. 719/2010 -:3:- Judge as per judgment dated 12.01.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough 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 legality and extent of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Kollam. As per report dated 18.03.2010, the District Probation Officer has reported, inter alia, as follows:- Even though the offender is seen not easily amenable to discipline and control, his family members are interested in him. He and his family members begged for mercy of this Court. Situational factors affected the revision petitioner in committing Crl.R.P. No. 719/2010 -:4:- the offence. He has no previous history of delinquency. Regular supervision, support of the family, interest of the revision petitioner to lead a law abiding life etc. shows chances for improvement in the habits and attitude of the offender. This is a fit case to consider release under the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Considering the various aspects reported by the District Probation Officer, instead of awarding the sentence on the revision petitioner immediately, I am inclined to release him on probation for a period of three years with a direction for supervision by the District Probation Officer during the said period of three years. The revision petitioner shall accordingly, appear before the trial court on 19.04.2010 to execute the necessary bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate to get himself released on probation for a period of three years during which there will be a direction for supervision by the District Probation Officer. He shall be released from custody forthwith unless his continued Crl.R.P. No. 719/2010 -:5:- detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but directing release of the petitioner on probation. Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv