IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY MONDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2007 / 25TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 307 of 1998 --------------------------------------- CR.A.41/1992 OF IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT , PALAKKAD. CC.180/1990 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI, .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- MANI @ MANIRAJ, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHAPPANGATHODIYIL VEEDU, SAVIJA PLASTICS, MEZHATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (S.I. OF POLICE, THRITHALA, CRIME NO. 31/90 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, J. ------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.307 OF 1998 ------------------------- Dated 16th July, 2007 ORDER Petitioner/accused along with three others were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner alone was convicted by the trial court under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of IPC. In appeal, conviction under Sections 457 and 461 of IPC were set aside and he was acquitted for those offences, but, conviction under Section 380 was confirmed and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/= imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below ending in conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 380 IPC. The prosecution case was that accused along with three others, in furtherance of their common intention to commit house-breaking by night by removing tiles on the roof of house of PW1 and after entering into the house and after breaking open the lock of the almirah kept in the eastern room of the house and committed theft of a gold chain with a locket weighing 8 grams and currency notes worth Rs.600/=. The theft was committed in the night of 1.10.1989. Crl.R.P.307/1998 2 Police found all the four persons and they were questioned by PW7. He saw a radio, tape recorder and petromax in the hands of the accused. He arrested the accused and recorded the confession statement. On the basis of the confession statement, MO1 chain was recovered from the Jewellery of PW3. In the seizure mahazar it has been recorded as follows: PW1 identified the MO1 gold chain as worn by her and which was stolen from her house. PW3 from whose Jewellery MO1 was found out deposed that he purchased MO1 from the first accused and he paid Rs.1695/= as value of the gold chain. He also deposed that first accused was introduced to him at his Jewellery by PW5 Ummer Master who was the teacher of the first accused. It is true that PW1 did not complain immediately after the theft, but, when it was revealed that the accused was arrested with the gold chain, she came forward for claiming the chain. The main contention is that recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C. is bad in the sense that it is stated that the above confession mentioned in the seizure mahazar was given on questioning all the four Crl.R.P.307/1998 3 accused. But, PW7 explained that even though all the four accused were questioned, only first accused confessed and stated that he will show the gold chain from the Jewellery of PW3. The confession statement as such was not marked, but, only in the seizure mahazar the summary was stated. Even eschewing recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C., there is a clear case that the first accused was introduced by PW5, his teacher to PW3 and the first accused sold the gold chain of PW1. But, at the same time, there is no explanation that how the first accused got the chain. Therefore, I am of the opinion that offence was proved beyond doubt on the basis of totality of evidence and I see no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The Crl.R.P. is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY Judge tks