IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2720 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.556/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.133/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- PAVANAN @ VIJAYAN(A3), C.NO.3781, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.REWSHMI(STATE BRIEF) STATE BRIEF RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 2720 of 2007 ````````````````` Dated: 13-08-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.133 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 30-08-2004 at about 1.30 a.m. the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit lurking house trespass and theft, gained entry into the dwelling house occupied by P.W1 and her family at Aanakkampoyil and after breaking open the lock of the grills of the kitchen room and door of the bedroom and the almirah, they committed theft of a gold necklace weighing 10.600 gms. 9 gold bangles weighing 70.580 gms, 2 gold bracelets weighing 24.020 gms., a gold ring weighing 1.65 gms , cash worth Rs. 20,000/-, 2 sarees, a mobile phone, a torch, an emergency light, 2 Crl.R.P. No. 2720 of 2007 -:2:- land phones, one chord less phone and a bed sheet altogether costing Rs. 85,000/-. 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 12 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 12 and got marked 14 documents as Exts. P1 to P14 and 11 material objects as MOs.1 to 11. 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. The petitioner submitted that he was taken into custody and kept in the police lock up for 45 days and he had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 11-8-2006 found all the accused persons guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years under Sec. 457 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 3 ½ years under Sec. 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. No separate Crl.R.P. No. 2720 of 2007 -:3:- sentence was imposed for the offence under Sec. 461 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal (Jail) No. 56 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 21-2-2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. Hence, this Revision. 6. I heard Adv. Smt. K.V. Reshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and Adv. Sri. C.M. Nazar, the learned Public Prosecutor who defended the State. 7. What is unravelled by the evidence in the case is the following:- P.W.1 Ramla along with her children had gone to her sisters' house at Vettummal on 29-08-2004, after locking the house at Anakkampoyil. She returned home on 30-08-2004 at about 11 .30 a.m. On entering the house she discovered that a theft had taken place in the house after breaking open the lock of the grills on the other side of her house. She found valuables and other movables and cash missing. She went to the Kadirur Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 F.I. statement on the basis of which Crime No. 242 of 2004 was registered . During the course of investigation P.W.11, the Circle Crl.R.P. No. 2720 of 2007 -:4:- Inspector of Thalassery arrested the revision petitioner on 18-12- 2004 at 2.20 a.m. in connection with Crime No. 290 of 1997 of Dharmadam Police Station. After producing the revision petitioner before the Magistrate he was subsequently obtained back on police custody. Based on the confession made by the revision petitioner P.W.11 seized MO1 bed sheet from a house at Noolpuzha from where he was arrested as per Ext. P9 seizure mahazar to which P.W.7 is a witness. Similarly on the strength of the confession made by the revision petitioner, P.W.11 seized MO3 emergency lamp from one Azeez, Sulthan Bathery as per Ext.P10 seizure mahazar to which P.W.8 is a witness. Again on the confession made by the revision petitioner, P.W.11 seized MO4 mobile phone and a gold ring from P.W.9 of Mahe as per Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. P.W.1 the de facto complainant has identified MOs 1,3 and 4 some of the properties which were stolen from her house. This is sufficient to connect the revision petitioner with the offences. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction and sentence on various grounds, since the conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. The sentence imposed on the revision Crl.R.P. No. 2720 of 2007 -:5:- petitioner also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate having regard to the daring manner in which the offences were committed and also having regard to the fact that he is an accused in another case involving similar offences. Accordingly this revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. The superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur shall send a report as to whether the revision petitioner (Convict No. 3781) has served out the sentence imposed on him in this case and whether he is undergoing sentence in any other case against him. The report shall be sent to this Court within two weeks from the receipt of this order a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.