IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 566 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.118/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II, PALAKKAD CC.618/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- JOSE @ JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS KAYATTANATH VEEDU, PALLIKKUNNU, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR. S.M.PREM MS. K.P.SANTHI MR. P.K.NIJOY MS. NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KREALA, 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 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 566 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 30th 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 Crime No. 100 of 2000 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station which led to C.C. No.618 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft broke open the lock of the shutter of room No. VII/234 of Kadampazhippuram Grama Panchayat and committed theft of 1500 kgs. of rubber sheet worth Rs.45,000/-. 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 Crl.R.P. No. 566/2010 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and 14 bundles of rubber sheets as MO1 series. 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. The accused examined one witness as DW1. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 16.01.2006 acquitted the 2nd accused of all the offences but convicted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. For his conviction under Section 457 IPC, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the conviction under Section 380 IPC, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 118 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the learned Crl.R.P. No. 566/2010 -:3:- Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Palakkda as per judgment dated 28.10.2009 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by enhancing the sentence of imprisonment under Section 457 IPC to three years and reduced the imprisonment under Section 380 IPC from three years to two years. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed by the lower appellate court. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Wayanad. As per report dated 23.03.2010, the District Probation Officer has, inter alia, reported as follows:- Crl.R.P. No. 566/2010 -:4:- Even though the revision petitioner was involved in several theft cases on account of his mingling with the bad company and failure in his farming ventures, for the past three years he has been following a life of good Samaritan. His relationship with his siblings is cordial. His sisters expressed faith in him and a desire to co-operate with the effort of bringing him into the mainstream of the society. They were praising God for the positive change that has come about in his style of living. His neighbours also maintained good relationship with his family and consider him as a victim of bad association. He expressed remorse for his past conduct. He had reportedly discontinued his friendship with his old friends who were co-accused along with him in many cases. He has a permanent abode and evinces a desire to live the life of a normal and law abiding citizen. This is a fit case to apply the benevolent provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with an order for supervision to ensure resocialisation and reintegration of the accused. 8. In the light of the above report of the District Probation Officer, I am inclined to defer the punishment to be imposed on Crl.R.P. No. 566/2010 -:5:- the revision petitioner and to release him on probation for a period of three years with an order for supervision by the District Probation Officer during the said period of three years. The revision petitioner shall report before the trial court on 09.04.2010 for executing the necessary bond which shall contain appropriate conditions including one for supervision by the District Probation Officer for a period of three years. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv