IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 275 of 2002()
1. V.M. HASHIM, CONVICT NO.5577,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ANIL K NAIR (STATE BRIEF)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :15/11/2006
O R D E R
K. P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002
----------------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 15 day of November, 2006
ORDER
This is revision registered on receipt
of petition from the accused from prison
complaining of the correctness of the
conviction and sentence passed against him
by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Kannur in C.C.642/1995 on the file of his
court confirmed in appeal by the Sessions
Judge, Thalassery in Criminal Appeal
No.226/1997.
2. The petitioner was the accused in
C.C.642/95 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Kannur
for offence punishable under Section 379
of IPC he having been charge sheeted by
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -2-
the S.H.O., Valapattanam in Crime No.160/94
of Valapattanam Police Station.
3. The allegation is that during night
on 12-05-1994, he committed theft of a car
stereo worth Rs.4,000/- from the car
bearing registration No.KEZ 1828 belonging
to PW1 which was parked in the car porch
of the house of PW1 situated in Puzhathi
desom of Chirakkal amsom. On the next day,
by about 7.00 am, when PW1 attempted to
take the car, it was found that the stereo
set was missing from the car which was
worth Rs.4,000/-. Immediately, she gave
Ext.P5 F.I. statement to the Police at the
Valapattanam Police Station. PW7, the
A.S.I attached to the said Police Station
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -3-
conducted preliminary investigation in the
case. As the Police could not detect
either the material object or the
offender, the case was transferred to the
register of undetected cases. In the
meanwhile, on 13.03.1995, PW6, the Sub
Inspector of Police, Kannur effected
arrest of the petitioner/accused from the
Muncipal bus stand when he was found in a
suspicious circumstances carrying a box.
On questioning by the Police, he was not
able to give satisfactory explanation for
his possession of the box which contained
the car stereo set. He was taken to the
Police Station and on questioning by PW6,
it is alleged that the petitioner gave
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -4-
Ext.P3(a) information to PW6 and that on
the basis thereof and with the assistance of
the petitioner/accused, he could effect
recovery of MO1 stereo set from PW3 who
was the purchaser thereof from the accused,
under Ext.P3 Mahazar attested also by PW4.
4. As the place of occurrence was
within the territorial limits of Valapattanam
Police Station, he transmitted the case
records to the Valapattanam Police Station
where PW7 and after him his successor in
office conducted investigation in the case.
MO1 was got identified through PW1 and
after due investigation the Police laid
charge against him. The learned Magistrate
heard preliminary arguments in the case
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -5-
and framed charge against the petitioner
for offence under Section 379 IPC. As he
denied the charge, a trial of the case was
conducted. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to
7, got marked Exts.P1 to P5 and got
identified MO1. On the prosecution closing
their evidence, the accused was questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he
generally denied all incriminating circum-
stances appearing in evidence against him
and maintained that he is innocent.
According to him, the case is one falsely
foisted against him.
5. The learned Magistrate considered
the case in the light of the evidence
adduced as aforesaid, found the petitioner
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -6-
guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 379 IPC, convicted him thereunder
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years. The
petitioner, filed Criminal Appeal No.226/97
before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The
Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction
and sentence passed against him and hence,
this revision.
6. It is contended before me by the
learned Counsel appearing on State Brief
for the petitioner that there is no proper
identification of MO1 as PW1 had not given
the number of MO1 in the F.I. Statement,
though he has given those details in his
deposition as PW1. It is worthy to note
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -7-
that a person who has owned an article may
be able to identify the said article on
sight though he may not be having any
specific identification mark to be mentioned.
Further, on seeing that the stereo set is
stolen from her car, PW1 has given F.I.
statement immediately without perusing the
records of purchase thereof. Obviously,
then she will not be able to give the
details of MO1 such a number etc. But at
the same time, when the culprit is
arrested and it is learned that the MO1 is
recovered at his instance, it is natural
that PW1 would verify the identity thereof
with the records and then get confirmed as
to its identity. The fact that MO1 had
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -8-
been stolen in the night on 12.05.1994 is
evidenced from the fact that on the very
next day, PW1 had given Ext.P1 F.I.
Statement to the Police. Though PW5, the
A.S.I could not trace out the culprit,
when PW6 effected arrest of the accused
under suspicious circumstances on the basis
of Ext.P3(a) information furnished to him
by the accused, he could effect recovery
of MO1 under Ext.P3 Mahazar attested also
by PW4 from PW3 who was the purchaser
thereof from the accused. There is no
valid challenge on the testimony of PW3 as
regards his testimony that MO1 was sold to
him by the accused. If at all, MO1 was not
being purchased by PW3 from the
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -9-
petitioner/accused, he would not have
surrendered it to PW6 on his approaching
him along with the petitioner/accused and
given evidence in support thereof. The
seizure of MO1 from PW3 under Ext.P3
Mahazar goes a long way to establish the
guilt in the accused as it is on the basis
of Ext.P3(a) information furnished by the
accused that PW6 was able to effect
recovery of MO1 from PW3 to whom the
petitioner/accused disclosed that he has
sold MO1. Thus, there is sufficient
evidence in the case to bring home the
guilt in the accused. It was therefore,
that the learned Magistrate convicted him
for offence under Section 379 IPC. The said
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -10-
conviction was rightly being confirmed by the
Sessions Judge in appeal. There is no
illegality or impropriety in the conviction
and sentence so entered into concurrently
by the courts below. The sentence awarded
to the appellant is also moderate,
reasonable and legal and there is no
reason to interfere with the sentence as
well. This revision in the circumstances,
is devoid of merit.
7. In the result, confirming the
conviction and sentence passed against the
petitioner concurrently by the courts
below, I dismiss this Criminal Revision.
K. P. BALACHANDRAN,
(JUDGE)
kns/-
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -11-
Crl. R. P. No.275 of 2002 -12-