IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2852 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.549/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.512/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- KELOTH FAISAL, C.NO.3453, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR BY ADV. ARUN B VARGHESE (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2852 of 2007 ==================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur, the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No.512 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offence. 2. I heard Adv. Shri. Arun B. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and Adv. Shri. P. Ravindra Babu, the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 03.07.2005, PW1 (Sethulakshmi) was returning from her office situated in the Thalassery railway station. When she reached the vicinity of the railway over bridge at Thalassery at about 12.10 p.m, the accused suddenly snatched a Thali chain weighing 4 ½ sovereign from her neck. The accused has thereby CRL.R.P. NO. :2: committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. 4. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and a gold chain as MO1. 5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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. 6. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 11.05.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 549 of CRL.R.P. NO. :3: 2006 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 21.02.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 7. 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. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the fact that MO1 gold chain which was allegedly snatched from the neck of PW1, has been recovered from PW3, a jeweller at the instance of the revision petitioner as revealed by Ext.P3 seizure mahazar and having regard to the further fact that the recovery squarely falls under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also since PW1 has CRL.R.P. NO. :4: correctly identified MO1 as the gold chain which was allegedly snatched from her neck, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was thus rightly entered. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionately harsh, having regard to the daring manner in which the chain was snatched and also having regard to the antecedents of the petitioner who is involved in other crimes of similar nature. This Revision is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv