IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2172 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRA.481/2001 OF III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK-I, THRISSUR ................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI @ KOCHA RAVI, 34 YEARS, S/O.VATTAPARAMBIL GOPI, PAZHUVIL DESOM, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THIMOTHY, 38 YEARS, S/O.PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, KOCHAPPAN, RESIDING AT RAILWAY POROMBOKKU, VARIAM LANE, THRISSUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. NO. 2172 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the confirmation of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in a S.394 IPC offence. In turn the said appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in C.C.184/98. The brief facts necessary are stated as follows. 2. It is the case of the complainant that while he was proceeding to the bus-stand after taking a cup of tea from the Jaya Hotel in Swaraj Round of Thrissur town the accused two in numbers followed him and demanded money and when he refused to pay the amount one person shut his mouth and the other person attempted to take money from the pocket which he resisted successfully but the accused hit him on the forehead with a stone resulting in injuries to him. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that except Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009 -2- for the version of PW1 all other independent witnesses had turned hostile and therefore it is not at all safe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 to arrive at a conviction. Just because a person is interested in giving evidence in a case, it shall not be discarded especially when he is the victim. Bu when such an evidence is adduced and the conviction is to be based on the said evidence the law cautions that the said evidence should be meticulously scrutinized to find out whether it is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable. If that test is satisfied then the uncorroborated evidence tendered by a victim can be used for conviction in a criminal case. With this in mind I had meticulously gone through the evidence of PW1. PW1 in clear crystal categorical terms had stated that he is acquainted with the accused who had attacked him and that how the incident had taken place. He had clearly deposed that while he was returning after a work with respect to a construction of a building and after disbursing the workers he proceeded to hotel Jaya for taking a cup of tea and thereafter he was proceeding to the bus stand and it was at that time the Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009 -3- accused who are well acquainted with him followed him and demanded money and when such demand was resisted he was attacked and he sustained injuries. I find his evidence is not shattered in the cross examination. 3. The learned counsel points out that the identity is not proper and there is no evidence to show that there was light. Both the Courts below had applied their mind to this question. The identity does not loom large for the reason that immediately after reaching the hospital when he was questioned by the concerned he had given the names of these two accused and he had also clearly explained in his evidence that they were familiar to him. So identity is proper. 4. So far as the light is concerned, the incident had taken place in the heart of Thrissur town namely Swaraj round where there is light through out night and one cannot expect the Thrissur town to be dark at 8.15 p.m. unless there is a power failure. So this argument also cannot be accepted. So I find the evidence of PW1 is proper, correct and acceptable. It is also to be remembered that the Court sitting in the Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009 -4- revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below on facts only if there is a total mis appreciation of the evidence by a perverse approach. But here the approach is proper and correct and so there cannot be any doubt regarding the acceptability of the evidence of PW1. For attracting the offence u/s 394 IPC, namely robbery, there need not be actual theft, in the process of theft when there is injury inflicted it will amount to robbery. It is also proved in this case. Therefore I sustain the conviction u/s 394 IPC. 5. Now, turning to the question of sentence. Though the charge is u/s 394 IPC, namely robbery, the incident itself speaks that the attempt was to take some money from the pocket of this person that too by persons who are familiar with him. So I feel in the circumstances some leniency can be shown and therefore I reduce the sentence to one of three months imprisonment. In the result the Crl.Revision is disposed of as follows. (1) The finding of guilt u/s 394 IPC is confirmed. (2) The sentence is modified and the accused are Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009 -5- sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. (3) They are entitled to set off as contemplated u/s 428 Cr.P.C. (4) The lower Court shall execute the sentence. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009 -6- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. No. 2172 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 7th July, 2009