IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 801 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.132/2006 of 2006 OF ADDL. S.J. (FAST TRACK-I) MANJERI CC.398/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL NAZAR @ INNI, S/O.KUNHEKKU, AMBALAPPARAMBAN, NARUKARA AMSOM, MANGALASSERI PATTARKULAM, MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P. No. 801 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated,: 12-03-2008 O R D E R Petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. 398 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. has been concurrently convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 461 and two years each under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The courts below have after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case recorded the conviction against the petitioner. P.W.2 who is the lady who lost MO1 tape -:2:- recorder and MO2 Walkman had credibly identified those two material objects as the properties which had been stolen fron her house. The recovery was effected at the instance of the petitioner and falling under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. I see no reason to interfere with the conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be excessive having regard to the daring manner in which the offences were committed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 was not justifiable. Accordingly the sentence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. is set aside and instead the revision petitioner is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently along with the sentence imposed under Section 46 1 which is not interfered with. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani