IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRL.A. NO. 163 OF 2004 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA in C.C.NO. 185 OF 2002 OF J.F.C.M. II,MANANTHAVADY REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ BHASKARAN, CONVICT NO. 3121 CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON 25/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. No. 1098 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 25-03-2008 ORDER In this Revision preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur the revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 185 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Manathavady for offences punishable under Sections 454 and 511 of 380 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows:- On 28-01-2002 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused with the intention of committing theft trespassed into the house of P.W.3 bearing No.T.P. 13/ 99 of Varinilam Kunnu, Thrissileri by opening the locked door and attempted to commit theft. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 454 and 511 and 380 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the J.F.C.M.II, Mananthavadi 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 two documents as Exts.P1 and P2. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused was Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2007 -:2:- 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. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 15- 5-2004 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Sec. 454 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Sec. 511 of 380 I.P.C. The substantive sentence of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions court, Wayanad as Crl.Appeal No. 163 of 2004 . As per judgment dated 2-2-2006 the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 454 I.P.C. from two years to one year. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court was confirmed. Hence, this Revision. 7. I heard Adv. Sri. N.K. Subramonian, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and Adv.Sri. K.S. Sivakumar, the learned Public Prosecutor who defended the State. 8. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2007 -:3:- evidence adduced by the prosecution is the following:- On 28-1-2002 at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.6 (Mohanan) who is the neighbour of P.W.3 (Subramonian) was going to his property for plucking tapioca. At that time he saw the accused running away from the nearby house of P.W.3 . P.W.6 made a hue and cry. Thereafter P.W.6 along with the local people chased the accused and caught him. The police was informed and the police came and arrested the accused. P.Ws 1 and 2 (Johny and Mohanan) are the persons who had joined P.W.6 in the act of chasing and apprehending the accused. They also deposed in support of the prosecution. P.W.3 the owner of the house deposed that on 28-01-2002 he had left his house at about 8.30 a.m. after locking the door and when he came back at 10.30 a.m. he saw P.W.6 and other chasing the accused and catching him from the nearby paddy field. On reaching home he found the door of his house lying wide open and the shelf inside also lying open. P.W.5 and P.W.7 are the police constable and Addl. Sub Inspector of Thrissilery Police Station who after getting the telephone message had gone to the house of P.W.3 and arrested the accused who was held a captive by P.Ws 1,2, 6 and others. The accused was arrested and Ext.P2 F.I.R. was registered. P.W.7 conducted the investigation and laid the charge against the accused. 9. It is true that no theft was committed from the house of P.W.3. But then the accused had managed to force open the door of P.W.3's house within hours of P.W.3 leaving the house after locking the door. The Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2007 -:4:- shelf inside the house was also opened. Had it not been for the timely arrival of P.W.6 in the nearby paramba for plucking tapioca the revision petitioner would have accomplished his plan and decamped with the valuables inside the house of P.W.3. There was thus clear evidence of lurking house trespass and an attempt to commit theft in a dwelling house thereby attracting Sec.454 and 511 of Sec. 380 I.P.C. The conviction was rightly entered against the revision petitioner and this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction concurrently recorded by the courts below. 10. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the lower appellate court also cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionately excessive having regard to the daring manner in which he gained entry into the house of P.W.3 during broad daylight. I therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the sentence imposed of the revision petitioner/accused. In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani/ V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. No. 1098 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 25-03-2008 ORDER