IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1295 of 2001(A) ------------------------------- CRA.59/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.123/1996 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------- AYYAPPAN, C-NO. 4414 BY ADV. ADV.D.AJITH KUMAR(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: ----------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST. BY ADV. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1295 of 2001 ==================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. O R D E R In this revision preferred from the Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.123 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offences. 2. I heard Adv. Shri. D. Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: During the night of 04.02.1995, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of PWs 1 to 3, situated by the side of the Kanjikuzhy-Devalokam road and broke open the almirah and committed theft of gold ornaments belonging to them. CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 2: 4. 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 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and 4 material objects as Mos.1 to 4. 5. 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. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 29.11.1999 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 457 and 461 IPC each and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 380 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 3: Kottayam as Crl. Appeal No. 59 of 2000, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated12.06.2001 confirmed the conviction entered but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 457 and 461 IPC to six months and the rigorous imprisonment under Section 380 IPC to 1 ½ years. Hence, this Revision. 7. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following:- PWs 1 to 3 had left the house on 04.02.1995 after locking the same for going to Kudamaloor for attending a function there. They returned on the next day afternoon. When they opened the house, they found the gold and silver ornaments missing. The door of the house was also lying open. PW2 informed the same to the police over the telephone. Subsequently, on 21.06.1995 PW7, who was on patrol duty arrested the accused in connection with Crime No. 55 of 1995 of the Kottayam Police Station. After interrogation of the accused, he registered Crime No. 244 of 1995 against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 IPC. Since the scene of occurrence CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 4: was within the limits of his police station he prepared Ext.P1 scene mahazar. Based on the confession given by the revision petitioner, he recovered MOs 1 to 3 from the railway purambokku where the accused was residing along with his family. Ext.P3 is the seizure mahazar under which MOs 1 to 3 were seized. Those ornaments were kept concealed beneath a concrete slab in the vicinity of the petitioner's residence. Even though the independent witnesses to the mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution, the testimony of PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police was credible enough to accept the recovery of MOs 1 to 3 at the instance of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 have credibly identified those material objects as belonging to them. 8. Under these circumstances, the conviction was rightly recorded by the courts below and the same does not call for any interference and is accordingly confirmed. 9. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the lower appellate court also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionately harsh. Having regard to the daring manner in which the offences were committed, I do not find any good CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 5: ground to interfere with same as well. In the result this revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 6: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. 1295 of 2001 ---------------------------------------- 31st day of July, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 7: