IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 354 of 1999() ----------------------------- CRA.184/1998 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- BAIJU S/O.VASU, C.NO.385, CENTAL PRISON, P.O.VIYYUR. BY ADV. ADV.SUNIL MOHAMMED (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. (C.I. OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.354 of 1999 =================== Dated: 27.08.2008 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 S.C.No.13 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Section 397 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 29.8.95 at about 11 am, the accused committed robbery of two gold bangles worn by PW2 while on the rear side of the courtyard of Vazhathara House, bearing building No.3/47 of Udayamperoor Panchayat. At the time of committing robbery he assaulted PW2, Mariyamma by catching hold of her neck by one hand and closing her nose and mouth with the other hand and by kicking on the ribs of PW2 and commited theft of two gold bangles belonging to PW2 resulting in PW2 losing two teeth from her upper jaw. The accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offence. Crl.R.P.No.354/1999 -:2:- 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 15 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 15 and got marked 14 documents as Exts. P1 to P14 and 2 material objects as MOs.1 and 2. 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. 5. The learned Asst.Sessions Judge, after trial, as per judgment dated 31.10.97 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Section 397 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.(Jail) Appeal No.184 of 1998 before the IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 31.08.98 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision Crl.R.P.No.354/1999 -:3:- petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner committed a serious crime after assaulting PW2 a woman aged 70 years and committed theft of her gold bangles after making plans for the same, he does not deserve any leniency. Penal servitude by way of incarceration alone will serve as a disincentive to such daring offenders like the petitioner. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the conviction entered and the sentence passed. This Crl.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 . V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.354/1999 -:4:-