IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 705 of 2007()
1. ABDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :01/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CRL.R.P. No.705 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the Ist day of July 2008
O R D E R
In this revision preferred from the Central Prison, Viyyur,
the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.1/2005 on the file
of the JFCM, Wadakkancherry for offences punishable under
Sections 457, 380 and 461 IPC challenges the conviction entered
and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below for the
aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
In the morning of 23/8/2004 PW1 along with his family
proceeded to his wife’s house at Kottayam. On 25.8.2004, when
he returned to his house situated within the limits of the
Cheruthuruthy Police Station, he found the front door of the
house broke open. After entering the house, he found out that
the almirah kept in the house had been forced open and one gold
chain weighing 4.5 sovereigns, another gold chain weighing two
CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:2:-
sovereigns, 5 gold bangles each of one sovereign, six pairs of
gold studs, a C.D. player together with its remote control and a
cash worth Rs.7500/- were found stolen.
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
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 14
witnesses as PWs. 1 to 14 and got marked 12 documents as
Exts. P1 to P12 and 17 material objects as MOs.1 to 17.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused was questioned under Section 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. He did not adduce
any defence evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 15/6/2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences charged against him and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for three years under Section 457 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for two years under Section 380 IPC and rigorous
CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:3:-
imprisonment for one year under Section 461 IPC. The sentences
were directed to run consecutively. On appeal preferred by the
revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thrissur as
Crl.Appeal 411/2006, the learned sessions judge dismissed the
appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision.
6. Even though Adv.Sri.K.K.Rajeev the learned counsel
appearing on State Brief assailed on various grounds the
conviction entered against the revision petitioner, the same has
been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and
documentary evidence in the case. On coming to know that his
house had been burgled, PW1 went to the Cheruthuruthy Police
Station and gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement resulting in the
registration of Ext.P1 FIR. Ext.P2 scene mahazar showed
evidence of house breaking and theft. On 26.8.2004, the
investigating officer seized MOs.10 to 15 from the scene of
occurrence indicating that entering into the house by breaking
open the door theft was committed by forcing open the lock of
the almirah. The petitioner was arrested on 2.9.2004 by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Chalissery and MOs. 1 to 8 gold ornaments
CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:4:-
were seized from him. He was actually detained by the local
people at Vellarikunnu junction since he was found carrying gold
ornaments under suspicious circumstances. He was then handed
over to the Sub Inspector. After registering a case against him
under Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. he was questioned resulting in his
taking the police to an unoccupied compound at Desamangalam
to recover MO9 CD player together with its remote control. After
he was produced before the Magistrate, he was taken back on
police custody and based on the information supplied by him
during further questioning MO6 series of gold studs and MO17
series of 4 bangles were seized from Fashion Jewellers, Pattambi.
PW1 and his wife PW2 identified the material objects seized at
the instance of the revision petitioner as the properties which was
stolen from their house. I, therefore, do not find any good ground
to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below
and the same is hereby confirmed.
7. What now survives for consideration is the question
regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on
the revision petitioner. The learned P.P., who was requested to
ascertain the antecedents of the petitioner, reported that the
CRL.R.P. No. 705/2007 -:5:-
petitioner is not seen involved in other crimes. If so, even though
the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is not excessive
or disproportionately harsh, the direction that the sentence shall
run consecutively calls for interference. Accordingly the said
direction is set aside and it is directed that the substantive
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner shall run
concurrently.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming
the conviction entered but modifying the mode of suffering the
sentence imposed as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/