IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 588 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------ (CRA.679/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.27/2007 AND DATED 11/07/2008) ................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, THANOTH VEEDU, NANMINDA P.O., NANMINDA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.N. SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. O R D E R Challenge in this revision petition is against the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court against the revision petitioner and his conviction and sentence u/s.379 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.9.2002 between 16.00 hrs. and 17.00 hrs. at a place from the parking area of Medical College Hospital in Chelavoor Amsom Desom of Kozhikode Taluk, the accused with a dishonest intention to take a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL.10.A.3345 owned by CW1, moved the same out of possession of CW1 without his consent and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.379 of IPC. On the basis of the information furnished by CW1, Crime No.281/02 was registered in the Medical College Police Station for the offence punishable u/s.379 of IPC and after investigation, the police filed a report based upon which C.C.No.27/07 was instituted in the 2 Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases)-Kozhikode. On appearance of the accused, a formal charge was framed against the revision petitioner, which was read over to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and denied the charge, consequent to which the prosecution adduced its evidence consists of the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 8 and the documentary evidence marked as Exts.P1 to P6. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced from the side of the defence. When the accused was questioned u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution evidence. Finally, the trial court has found that the accused is guilty u/s.379 of IPC and accordingly he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year, for the offence u/s.379 of IPC and set off was allowed. 3. The accused though challenged the above conviction and sentence, by filing an appeal, by judgment dated 15.9.2008 in Crl.A.No.679/08 the Court of Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Thus the 3 Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 challenge in this revision petition is against the above conviction and sentence. 4. I have heard Adv.Smt.Priya P.K., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel pointed out that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FI statement and the consequent registration of the crime. It is also the submission of the learned counsel, regarding the seizure of the vehicle that, absolutely there is no independent evidence. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is implicated in a false case at the instance of the police. 6. Stoutly opposing the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that two courts have concurrently found against the 4 Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 revision petitioner regarding the offence committed and there is no scope for any interference of this court in this revision petition. 7. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by both the counsels for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Going by the records and the materials and evidence on records it can be seen that, in order to prove the charge against the revision petitioner, that he had stealthily removed the vehicle in question, the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of Pws.2, 3 and 7. PW2 is a cobbler by profession. PW3 is the driver of PW8, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu Police Station. PW2 is the signatory to Ext.P2 but he says that he put the signature in Ext.P2 at his work shop. PW2 was declared hostile and PW3 is an independent witness and though there is some discrepancies in his deposition, he had stated that the jeep in question was held in a traffic block and at that time, PW8 intercepted the vehicle. But ofcourse when PW8 was examined, he had stated that the vehicle was intercepted by keeping the 5 Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 police jeep in front of the jeep, driven by the accused. The learned Magistrate observed that, Ext.P6 FIR was suo moto registered by PW8 on 23.9.2002 lodging the offence punishable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and S.41(1)(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. Exts.P2 and P6 proves that the accused was arrested on 23.9.2002 at about 17.45 hrs., though Ext.P2 shows that the arrest was at about 11.45 hrs. and P6 shows it was at 18.15 hrs. on 23.9.2002. The learned Magistrate after having considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case, held that the discrepancies regarding the variation with respect to the time of arrest, have no legal consequences. The learned Magistrate further held that the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the vehicle involved in the incident was proved through the evidence of Pws.2, 3 and 8. It is also proved that the vehicle in question was lost on 12.9.2002. It was parked in the premises of Medical College Hospital and subsequently on 23.9.2002, the vehicle was seized and the accused was arrested, while he was in possession of the vehicle. So the learned 6 Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2010 Magistrate by rightly drawing presumptions as envisaged u/s.114 (A) held that the revision petitioner is either a thief or a receiver of the stolen property. 9. Going by the judgments of the courts below, it can be seen that both the courts below after having considered the evidence and materials on record and on correct appreciation of the same, cam into a conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the revision petitioner. In the light of the above facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived on by the courts below and the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below are confirmed. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/