IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1936 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- CRA.223/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.592/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2:APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K. MUHAMMED, S/O. PUTHENVEETTIL, KHADER, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, THANGAL NAGAR DESOM. BY ADV. MR.P.F.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MST. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.7986/03 IN CRRP.NO.1936/2003 – DISMISSED ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.7985/2003 IN CRRP.NO.1936/2003- CLOSED ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.8578/2004 IN CRRP.NO.1936/2003-CLOSED 23/03/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1936 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd March, 2009 ORDER The revision is filed by the 2nd accused in a calender case against the concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the revision petitioner (A2) along with five others committed theft of a motor car on the night of 4.10.1996, from the car shed of P.W.1. The vehicle belonged to P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, and the next morning noticing the theft, he reported it to the Kunnamkulam Police Station, on which a crime was registered. After commission of theft, the revision petitioner sold the vehicle to another, and during investigation, the vehicle was recovered and seized on the basis of his disclosure statement while he was in custody. After completion of the investigation, charge was laid against all the accused (A1 to A6) for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 I.P.C. A1 remained at large, and the other accused, A2 to A6, faced trial. The accused who stood trial pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exts.P1 to P5 to prove their guilt. After appreciating the materials tendered, the Crl.R.P.No.1936/03 - 2 - learned Magistrate found, the revision petitioner, A2, alone guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and other accused, A3 to A6, were acquitted. Against the conviction, A2 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. After reappreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate that he was guilty of the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and the conviction and sentence imposed was upheld without any modification. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction, the revision has been filed. 3. Perusing the records of the case, I find that the conviction of the accused was based on the recovery of the stolen vehicle purported to have been made on the disclosure statement of the present accused while he was in custody. P.W.6, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam who effected the recovery had given evidence that the accused after his arrest and during the course of his interrogation while in custody, disclosed that he sold the vehicle for a value of Rs.37,000/- to one Prasad Chandran, Fort Kochi. Pursuant to that disclosure statement and on the basis of the identification made by the accused, the vehicle was recovered under Ext.P2 mahazar. The disclosure statement of the accused leading to the recovery had Crl.R.P.No.1936/03 - 3 - been deposed to by the investigating officer, who questioned and recorded his statement. Ext.P5 is the disclosure statement. Other than bare denial that he had not committed the theft of the vehicle, it is seen that Ext.P5 statement remained practically undisputed. The trial Magistrate who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of P.W.5, who recorded the statement of the accused and later effected the recovery of the stolen vehicle on the basis of the disclosure statement collected from the accused, found his testimony reliable, convincing and trustworthy. When the sworn testimony of P.W.5, the investigating officer is found unblemished, there is no need to seek any corroboration. The learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation, also found the evidence of P.W.5, the investigating Officer, with regard to the disclosure statement and recovery pursuant thereto, as unimpeachable. The evidence so let in incriminating the accused for the offence indicted, is unassailable, and then there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that he had committed the theft and, later, sold the stolen vehicle. Culpability of the other coaccused had not been established in the case will not in any way affect the accused, where his guilt is proved by convincing and cogent legal evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no scope for any interference with the conviction and sentence Crl.R.P.No.1936/03 - 4 - imposed against the accused. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE