IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 146 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.347/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM CC.673/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT:- -------------------------------------- AYYAPPAN,C.NO.1455, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM-12. BY ADV. MR. SANEER P.M. (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT:- ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 146 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No. 673 of 2002 on the file of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 380 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 07.09.1994, at about 9.30 p.m., the accused with the intention of committing theft committed house breaking by night criminally trespassed into the house bearing building No. V/2004 of Kottayam Municipality known as Pallathil House in Muttambalam village, wherein PWs 1 and 2 were residing along with their family and committed theft of MO1 tape recorder worth Rs.3000/- by snatching the same away through the northern window of the north-eastern room of the said house. Crl.R.P. No. 146/2010 -:2:- The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. 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 5 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and one tape recorder as MO1. 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 Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 29.05.2003 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 457 I.P.C. but convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 380 IPC. For the conviction under Section 448 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous Crl.R.P. No. 146/2010 -:3:- imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the conviction under Section 380 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Even though the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kottayam as Crl. Appeal No. 347 of 2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I) as per judgment dated 09.11.2004 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. I heard Adv. Shri. Saneer P.M., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer who had reported that the petitioner is involved in 20 other cases of similar nature. Such a person who is a habitual offender, does not deserve any leniency. Crl.R.P. No. 146/2010 -:4:- 8. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the judgments of the Courts below, I see little scope for interference. The findings recorded by the courts below are on the basis of appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. Both the courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses. Sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the concurrent findings. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by the courts below. This Revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 146/2010 -:5:-