IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1263 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.273/2006 of Addl. Sessions Court, (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam SC.124/2003 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- SHAMEER @ THEKKAN, S/O.SHAMSU, AGED 28, KARAPPAN VEEDU, KUNNUMPURAM DESOM, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON 18/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 1263 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 18-07-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the first accused in S.C. No.124 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Sec. 397 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 2-7-2002 at about 11.15 p.m. the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to rob P.W.1 of his valuables assembled on the bye-pass road at Atlantis near the Cochin Shipyard, Ernakulam. A1 and A3 wrongfully restrained P.W.1. A1 fisted P.W.1 on the face and forcibly snatched MO3 mobile phone worth Rs. 3,000/- from P.W.1, A1 stabbed P.W.1 on his abdomen with MO1 knife inflicting a severe injury. When P.W.1 who was demanded to part with MO2 gold ring worn by him on his finger refused to do so A1 forcibly took out the same weighing 6 gms. from the finger of P.W.1. A1 forcibly took out from the pocket of P.W.1's shirt a purse containing Rs. 2,000/-. The aforesaid offences were committed by the accused after Crl.R.P. No. 1263 of 2008 -:2:- reaching the place of occurrence in a Maruti Van KL-7E/6618 driven by A2. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and material objects as MOs 1 to 3. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 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. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after trial, as per judgment dated 4-4-2006 found the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A. No. 273 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 15-6-2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence, this Revision. 6. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary Crl.R.P. No. 1263 of 2008 -:3:- evidence in the case is the following:- P.W.1 Biju was walking along the bye-lane near Atlantis junction on his way to an institution by name X'tent Technology to meet his friend, Pradesh. While he was walking along the bye- lane at about 11.15 p.m. on 2-7-2002, A1 and A2 came from behind and asked him what the time was . When he stopped, they came near him and A1 suddenly gave a fist on his face and forcibly took out his mobile phone from his pocket. A2 showed a knife and asked P.W.1 to remove his gold ring and to hand it over to him. When P.W.1 started crying A1 stabbed him with a knife on his belly and forcibly took out the gold ring. A1 also removed the purse of P.W.1 from his pocket. The purse was containing cash worth Rs. 2,000/-. Thereafter, A1 and A2 decamped from there. P.W.1 somehow reached X'tent Technology building. Since his friend Pradeesh was not there the friends of Pradeesh informed the matter to P.W.2 Kurian Thomas who was the Director of that Institution. P.W.2 came in his car and took P.W.1 to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where P.W.1 was admitted for treatment. P.W.1 gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement to the police while undergoing treatment in the hospital. A portion of the intestine of P.W.1 was bulging out through the stab injury on his belly. P.W.4 the casualty medical officer in the medical trust hospital examined P.W.1 and issued Ext.P4 wound certificate. P.W.13 who is the surgeon attached to the Ernakulam Meducal Centre Hospital deposed that P.w.1 was Crl.R.P. No. 1263 of 2008 -:4:- subsequently taken to the Ernakulam Meducal Centre Hospital on 3-7-2002 and treatment continued there. Ext.P11 is the discharge certificate. P.W.13 the surgeon has deposed that the injury on the abdomen of P.W.1 was sufficient to cause death if timely medical treatment was not given. A1 and A2 were arrested along with another person in connection with Crime No. 208 of 2002 by P.W.17 the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station. During interrogation by P.W.17 A1 made a confessional statement based on which P.W.17 recovered MO2 gold ring from the jewellery shop of P.W.6 as per Ext.P6 mahazar. MO3 mobile phone was also so recovered. P.W.17 also recovered MO1 knife from a place near the old Airport, Kochi as per Ext.P9 mahazar based on the confession of A1. MOs 1 to 3 were identified by P.W.1 the victim. 7. The argument that P.W.1 could not have identified A1 during that night, particularly, when he had no previous acquaintance with A1 is not appealing to me. The courts below have clearly adverted to the testimony of P.W.1 to the effect that there was street light as well as the light emanating from X'tent Technology providing sufficient light for him to identify P.W.1. There was some interaction between P.W.1 and A1 giving him ample opportunity to study the features of A1. Hence, the dock identification of A1 without there being any test identification parade is not unworthy of credence. The conviction recorded by both the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and Crl.R.P. No. 1263 of 2008 -:5:- documentary evidence does not call for any interference by this Court sitting in revision and the same is accordingly confirmed. 8. 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 robbery was committed and P.W.1 was stabbed on his belly. I do not find any good ground for interference in the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as well. In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Dated this the 18th day of July 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.