IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2533 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.105/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.664/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER-APPELLANT-1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- MAHESH, S/O.CHITHAMBARAN, PARAKKODATHU HOUSE, DIVISION NO.23, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON SRI.E.G.GORDEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT -COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 2533 OF 2007 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 379 read with 34 IPC. Altogether there are three accused persons. The petitioner/1st accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The 3rd accused was found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the 2nd accused, who was not available, was split up and was refiled. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that a motor cycle owned by PW4, which he had handed over possession to his friend PW3 for his use, which PW3 had kept in front of an office near to the KSRTC bus stand on 25.5.02, was thieved. PW3 lodged a complaint Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 on 27.5.02. Ext.P4 FIR was registered. Ext.P3 is the copy of the registration certificate showing the ownership of PW4. PW3 CRRP.2533/07 : 2 : on 4.7.02 located MO1 motor cycle thieved from his possession. A1 was in possession of the vehicle at the relevant time. A1 could not explain his possession of the vehicle. PW3 allegedly detained A1 and informed the police. PW6 came to the scene and effected arrest of A1 and seized MO1 under Ext.P1. PWs 1 and 2 are attestors to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar under which MO1 was seized on 4.7.02. PW5 is the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation. Ext.P5 is the scene mahazar and Ext.P6 is the report submitted to the Magistrate by the investigator. 3. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. The accused denied the offences alleged against him whereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. PWs 1 and 2 though they admitted their signatures in Ext.P1 disowned the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. PW3 supported the prosecution case. The accused took up a CRRP.2533/07 : 3 : defence of total denial. According to him, the vehicle was not seized from his possession. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that possession of the vehicle by the petitioner and the seizure of the same from his possession under Ext.P1 on 4.7.02 have been established satisfactorily. The courts took the view that the absence of any explanation on the part of the 1st accused must entail the drawing of a presumption against him that the person found in possession of property recently stolen must be presumed to be the person who has committed the theft. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the concurrent judgments. 5. Before me the learned counsel for the revision petitioner advances the contention that the courts below erred in accepting the evidence of PW3 and PW6 about the seizure of MO1 from the possession of the petitioner on 4.7.02. The CRRP.2533/07 : 4 : learned counsel relies on the hostility of PWs 1 and 2. 6. The courts below have noted that there is no reason why PW3 should have subsequently implicated the petitioner herein. The courts below were impressed by evidence of PW3 who did not choose to support the prosecution case in so far as it related to A3. The hostility of PWs 1 and 2 did not in any way impress the courts below. They have admitted their signatures in Ext.P1, the contents of which support the evidence of PWs 3 and 6 about the seizure of the vehicle from the petitioner herein. 7. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned verdict of guilty and conviction do not in any way warrant interference. The courts below, according to me, were absolutely justified in accepting and acting upon the testimony of PWs 3 and 6 which is supported by the contemporaneous seizure mahazar Ext.P1, the signature in which is admitted by PWs 1 and 2. There is no need of CRRP.2533/07 : 5 : invocation of revisional jurisdiction on super session and correction against the said findings of fact by the courts below. 8. Coming to the question of sentence, no interference is warranted with the sentence imposed which is absolutely fair, modest, reasonable and just. 9. This Crl.R.P. is dismissed upholding the impugned concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks