IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1544 of 2004(C) ------------------------------- CRA.649/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.1143/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ VIJESH, S/O. VIJAYAN, CONVICT NO.3520, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHA.P.S.(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1544 of 2004 ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. O R D E R In this revision preferred from the Central Prison, Viyyur, the revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.1143 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur for an offence punishable under Section 379 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 is that some time after the midnight on 08.12.2001, the accused dishonestly committed theft of a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL8 A 5095 in the possession of PW1 which was parked near the Thiruvanchikulam temple and the accused has thereby committed an offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC. 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 8 CRL.R.P. NO. 1544/2004 :2: witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. 4. 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. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 06.09.2003 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 649 of 2003 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 28.11.2003 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 1544/2004 :3: 6. I heard Adv. Smt. P.S Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and Adv. Shri. C.M. Nazer, learned Public Prosecutor who represented the State. 7. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following: PW1, Sreejith was owning and possessing the motorcycle in question. He had parked the motorcycle in front of the room in which he was sleeping during the night of 08.12.2001. He was a poojari in the Thiruvanchikulam temple. When he woke up the next morning, he found his motorcycle missing and he lodged Ext.P1 F.I Statement before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungallur. PW2 who was a companion residing along with PW1, also deposed about the factum of theft. On 30.12.2001, PW8, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused while he was engaged in checking vehicles in front of the Ottupara bust stand at Vadakkancherry. The accused came riding on the motorcycle. He did not stop the vehicle even after PW8 gave signal to do so. He was chased and apprehended. On interrogation, the accused was unable to satisfactorily account for CRL.R.P. NO. 1544/2004 :4: his possession of the two wheeler. PW8 seized the motorcycle under Ext.P7 mahazar and proceeded to the Vadakkancherry police station from where he registered Ext.P6 FIR. On coming to know that the occurrence took place within the limits of the Kodungallur Police Station, PW8 transferred the FIR to the Kodungallur Police Station where it was considered along with Ext.P4 FIR registered at the instance of PW1. PWs 5 and 6 are the police officials who were in the company of PW8. They also deposed in terms of the prosecution. PW1 who was the owner and possessor of the motor cycle, identified the same in court. The occurrence has been clearly proved by the seizure of the stolen motorcycle from the possession of the revision petitioner/accused who had no satisfactory explanation for the same. The two wheeler has been credibly identified by its owner, PW1. The prosecution case was thus clearly established. 8. 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 1544/2004 :5: 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. 9. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. I see no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Such daring offences are now on the increase and penal servitude by way of incarceration alone can serve as an effective disincentive against such offenders. In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv