IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 705 of 2007() --------------------------------------- CRA.411/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.1/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- ABDU, C.NO.5342, CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P. No.705 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the Ist day of July 2008 O R D E R In this revision preferred from the Central Prison, Viyyur, the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.1/2005 on the file of the JFCM, Wadakkancherry for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: In the morning of 23/8/2004 PW1 along with his family proceeded to his wife's house at Kottayam. On 25.8.2004, when he returned to his house situated within the limits of the Cheruthuruthy Police Station, he found the front door of the house broke open. After entering the house, he found out that the almirah kept in the house had been forced open and one gold chain weighing 4.5 sovereigns, another gold chain weighing two CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:2:- sovereigns, 5 gold bangles each of one sovereign, six pairs of gold studs, a C.D. player together with its remote control and a cash worth Rs.7500/- were found stolen. 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 14 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 14 and got marked 12 documents as Exts. P1 to P12 and 17 material objects as MOs.1 to 17. 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 15/6/2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 457 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 380 IPC and rigorous CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:3:- imprisonment for one year under Section 461 IPC. The sentences were directed to run consecutively. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thrissur as Crl.Appeal 411/2006, the learned sessions judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though Adv.Sri.K.K.Rajeev the learned counsel appearing on State Brief assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, the same has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. On coming to know that his house had been burgled, PW1 went to the Cheruthuruthy Police Station and gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement resulting in the registration of Ext.P1 FIR. Ext.P2 scene mahazar showed evidence of house breaking and theft. On 26.8.2004, the investigating officer seized MOs.10 to 15 from the scene of occurrence indicating that entering into the house by breaking open the door theft was committed by forcing open the lock of the almirah. The petitioner was arrested on 2.9.2004 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chalissery and MOs. 1 to 8 gold ornaments CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:4:- were seized from him. He was actually detained by the local people at Vellarikunnu junction since he was found carrying gold ornaments under suspicious circumstances. He was then handed over to the Sub Inspector. After registering a case against him under Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. he was questioned resulting in his taking the police to an unoccupied compound at Desamangalam to recover MO9 CD player together with its remote control. After he was produced before the Magistrate, he was taken back on police custody and based on the information supplied by him during further questioning MO6 series of gold studs and MO17 series of 4 bangles were seized from Fashion Jewellers, Pattambi. PW1 and his wife PW2 identified the material objects seized at the instance of the revision petitioner as the properties which was stolen from their house. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The learned P.P., who was requested to ascertain the antecedents of the petitioner, reported that the CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:5:- petitioner is not seen involved in other crimes. If so, even though the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is not excessive or disproportionately harsh, the direction that the sentence shall run consecutively calls for interference. Accordingly the said direction is set aside and it is directed that the substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioner shall run concurrently. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the mode of suffering the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/