IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 420 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.841/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.27/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- KUMARAN, S/O. MURUKESAN, DOOR NO.441, KANCHIKKODE. (C.NO.5254, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR.) BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON 19/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. Ramkumar, J. ........................................ Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 ........................................... Dated: 19-03-2008 Order In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the first accused in C.C. 27 of 2007 on the file of J.F.C.M. I, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 461 I.P.C. challenges the conviction enetered and the sentence passed against him for those offences. 2. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is the following:- The place of occurrence is the residential house of the brother of P.W.1 situated at Vengeri amsom of Kozhikode Taluk. The said house is by the side of Kannadikal road near Kakkodi bridge. Aneeshkumar the brother of P.W.1 was working abroad and his wife is residing in her tarvad house. Hence the said house kept locked. There were household articles including Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:2:- T.V.and Fridge inside the house. P.W.1 is residing at Edakkad. In the afternoon of 5-12-2006 P.W.1 came to the house of his brother. After opening the gate when he entered the courtyard he found some of the household articles including lamps kept in a bag outside the house. Getting suspicious he tried to enter the house through the back door. At that time four persons ran out of the house. With the help of the local people they were able to catch three out of 4 people who had escaped. The police were called and the three accused persons were handed over to the police. Mos 1 to 4 in MO5 plastic bag are the articles which were found in the courtyard. It was P.W.1 who gave the first information to the police. P.W.2 is a local resident residing on the rear of the house in question. He deposed that he could see A3 there and the others were subsequently caught . P.W.3 is the wife of Aneeshkumar who is the brother of P.W.1. She was informed by P.W.1 about the theft and she rushed to the scene of occurrence. She identified Mos 1 to 4 as her belongings. P.W.5 is a witness to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. P.W.6 is the investigating officer who recorded Ext.P1 F.I. statement from the Chevayoor Polcie Station. Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:3:- 3. Thus, all the three accused persons including the revision petitioner/first accused were there inside the house when P.W.1 reached there and Mos 1 to 4 were also kept outside the house. The evidence clearly shows that the accused had broken open the back door of the house and had also forced open the receptacle inside the house to remove Mos 1 to 4. After removing those properties from the house when they were about to decamp with the properties that they were virtually caught red handed by P.W.1 and others. The conviction was right entered against the revision petitioner and the same is accordingly confirmed. 4. What now survives for consideration is as to the legality or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner/first accused was a first offender and he did not deserve any punishment by way of imprisonment. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions confirmed the fact that the revision petitioner is not involved in any other crime. But that can hardly be a circumstance to exempt the revision petitioner from Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:4:- imprisonment. The occurrence shows that it was committed in broad daylight. It was after breaking open the rear door of the house that the accused persons gained their entry into the house and removed the brazz plate, steel tap series and oil lamp from the house. However, having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is a first offender, I am of the view that he does not deserve rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec. 454 I.P.C. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 454 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. In all other respects the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is confirmed. Accordingly, confirming the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner, the sentence imposed on him under Sec. 454 is reduced to two years instead of three years. In all other respects the sentence imposed by the Court below, is confirmed as above. In the result, this Revision Petition is disposed of . V. Ramkumar, Judge ani/