IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1604 of 2008(A) ------------------------------- CRA.723/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.991/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED/APPELLANT ----------------------------------- SUNILKUMAR, S/O.VASU PILLAI ATTUKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.22/222, MANACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 28-07-2008 ORDER The revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 991 of 2000 of J.F.C.M.III, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 379 challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him by the courts below for the aforementioned offences . 2. The case of the prosecution is unravelled through the oral and documentary evidence is the following:- P.W.1 (Girija) who was then aged 29 years was a teacher working at the Government High School, Vanchiyoor. At that time she was the office bearer of the State Organization of School Teachers. For the purpose of the society of the said school she engaged the auto belonging to the revision petitioner from the Statue Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner/accused was the person who drove the autorickshaw. She had asked the accused to take her to Thampanoor via M.G. Road. Ignoring her request the accused took her through other various roads which were unfamiliar to her. While travelling, the accused was talking to her in obscene Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 -:2:- words. He had also stretched his hand towards her to her annoyance. Fearing some untoward incident at the hands of the accused she kept silent. Instead of parking the auto near the autorickshaw stand he stopped the three wheeler some distance away. Then P.W.1 gave him Rs. 10/- resulting in an altercation regarding the fare. Soon the accused snatched her vanity bag and opened the same and picked out 5 currency notes each of Rs. 500/- denomination. After taking Rs. 2000/- he threw the bag on the road. P.W.1 went and picked up her bag. The persons who collected there picked up the coins and other currency notes which had fallen on the road. After extracting the money from the bag of P.W.1 the accused sped away in the auto. This part of the occurrence was seen by PW3 who is a teacher of the Government Boys High School, Thiruvananthapuram. P.W.1 went to the Thampanoor Police Station lodged Ext.P1 complaint on the same day to the head constable who was in charge of the Station. But the said complaint is seen registered only on 30-10-2000. P.W.2 is the lady from whom P.W. 1 had borrowed Rs. 2,000/- which was extorted by the accused. The said amount was borrowed by P.W.1 for the purpose of meeting the expenses for the ceremonies in connection with the death anniversary of her father. Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 -:3:- 3. Both the courts have believed the version of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 to record the conviction against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 379 I.P.c. The sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Sec. 379 I.P.C. is simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For the conviction under Sec. 354 I.P.C. he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount was directed to be paid as compensation to P.W.1. It is the said conviction and sentence which are assailed in this revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me:- The version of P.W.1 who is admittedly an office bearer of the Teachers' Organization is too good to be believed. There might have been some altercation regarding the fare payable by P.W.1 to the accused. But no autorickshaw driver will be so unfair to extract a sum of Rs. 2000/- in the manner alleged and that too at 10.30 a.m. from the vicinity of Thampanoor bus station. Eventhough P.W.1 claims to have lodged the complaint on 13-10-2006 the F.I.R. is seen registered only on 30-10-2006 and absolutely no explanation is forthcoming for the 17 days delay. Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 -:4:- 5. As to the evidence regarding the occurrence both the courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses. It is in the realm of appreciation of evidence and this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the conclusion entered by the courts below in that behalf. There is no need for a teacher who is holding a respectable position in the society to lodge a false complaint against the accused and pursue the same by giving evidence before court. Merely because P.W.2 is also a teacher in some other school it cannot be assume that he was rendering lip service to P.W.1. 6. As for the delay also P.W.1 has deposed that she lodged a complaint before the police on the same day orally and the police had asked her about the occurrence and that she signed the statement after 15 days of filing the complaint. This fits in with the case of P.W.4 the investigating officer that the complaint dated 13-10-2006 was received by post on 13-10-2006 by the head constable who registered the F.I.R. on 30-10-2006. It is not as if the courts below were not live to the question of delay which has not been found fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction entered against the revision petitioner. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question of adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 -:5:- petitioner. The evidence in this case shows that the accused who is an auto driver was taking advantage of the vulnerability of P.W.1 who is a lady then aged 29 years. He not only paid no attention to her entreaties to take her to Thampanoor through M.G. road he took her through various roads which were unfamiliar to her. At the termination point when P.W.1 offered him Rs. 10/- instead of receiving it and if the fare offered was not sufficient , instead of asking for more he grabbed at her bag forcibly and extracted Rs. 2000/- and sped from the scene. Considering the daring manner which the above acts were committed by the accused he certainly deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration. But, at the same time, being a first offender he does not deserve imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 379 I.P.C. I am therefore, inclined to reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. The fine portion as well as the sentence imposed on him under Sec. 354 are not interfered with. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani Crl.R.P. No. 1604 of 2008 -:6:- ani.