IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3531 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.18/2001 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.482/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- PRASAD @ LALU, S/O.CHANDRAN, ARIYEZHUTHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J ============ Crl. R.P.No.3531 of 2008 ================== Dated 12th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petitioner who is the third accused in C.C.No.482 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II (Forest Offences), Punalur challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 06-01-1997, at about 2.30 a.m., the third accused along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft criminally tresspassed into the house of PW1 bearing door No.802 of Ward No.35 of Kollam Municipality by bending iron bars of the Crl.R.P.No.3531 of 2008 - 2 - ventilator of the bathroom on the first floor. They then entered into the house and then they broke open the steel almirah and committed theft of 6 pairs of ear studs weighing 2½ sovereigns, one gold chain weighing 10 gram, one gold ring weighing half sovereign, a radio cum tape recorder, one electric iron, one camera, one emergency light, one wrist watch, one time-piece, one remote controller, one cleaning cassette, two video cassettes, one flash light altogether valued at Rs.25,300/-. Since second accused was absconding, the first accused/revision petitioner alone faced trial. 3. On the petitioner/accused pleading not guilty to the charges framed against them by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and got marked seven documents as Exhibits P1 to P7 and 10 material Crl.R.P.No.3531 of 2008 - 3 - objects as MO1 to M.O.10 . After the close of 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 adduced by the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. 4. The learned Magistrate after trial as per judgment dated 14-12-2000 found first and third accused guilty of the offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 461 read with 34 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam as Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam as per judgment dated 4-2-2008 dismissed Crl.R.P.No.3531 of 2008 - 4 - the appeal and confirmed the conviction entered and sentence passed. Hence this revision. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made following submissions before me in support of his case:- The confession statement given by the revision petitioner does not contain the authorship of concealment. MOs.5 to 8, which are the emergency light, camera, electric iron, and time-piece allegedly recovered at the instance of the revision petitioner, do not consist of any of the gold ornaments stolen from the house of PW1. PW2 Yahiya from whom MOs.5 to 8 were allegedly seized has not stated that it was the revision petitioner who sold those items to him. On the contrary, his statement was that accused Nos.2 and 3 sold various items to him and from that alone the revision petitioner cannot be found guilty. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is on the higher side. Crl.R.P.No.3531 of 2008 - 5 - 7. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. The confession statement given by the third accused/revision petitioner is that he led the police party to the shop of PW2 from where the police party seized MOs.5 to 8 as per Exhibit P5 Recovery Mahazar. PW1 has credibly identified the said MOs. as the properties, which were stolen from his house. The recovery evidence tendered by the investigating officer together with PW2 and the identification of the stolen properties by their owner (PW1) constitutes a close chain of circumstantial evidence forming the basis for convicting the revision petitioner. The conviction recorded by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this court and the same is accordingly confirmed. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot stated to be excessive or disproportionately harsh. 8. The learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in crime No.221 of 2007 at Gandhi Crl.R.P.No.3531 of 2008 - 6 - Nagar Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Penal servitude by way of Rigorous incarceration alone can serve as adequate deterrence to such daring offenders. Hence, I feel that there is no ground to interfere with the sentence imposed by the courts below against the revision petitioner as well. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and sentence imposed by the courts below against the revision petitioner. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.