IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1295 of 2001(A)
1. AYYAPPAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :ADV.D.AJITH KUMAR(STATE BRIEF)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 1295 of 2001
====================
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008.
O R D E R
In this revision preferred from the Central Jail,
Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.
No.123 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and
461 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against him for the said offences.
2. I heard Adv. Shri. D. Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
During the night of 04.02.1995, the accused criminally
trespassed into the house of PWs 1 to 3, situated by the side of
the Kanjikuzhy-Devalokam road and broke open the almirah and
committed theft of gold ornaments belonging to them.
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 2:
4. 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 8
witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 3 documents as Exts.
P1 to P3 and 4 material objects as Mos.1 to 4.
5. 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.
6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial, as
per judgment dated 29.11.1999 found the revision petitioner
guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months under Sections 457 and 461 IPC
each and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 380
IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court,
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 3:
Kottayam as Crl. Appeal No. 59 of 2000, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge as per judgment dated12.06.2001 confirmed the
conviction entered but reduced the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment under Sections 457 and 461 IPC to six months and
the rigorous imprisonment under Section 380 IPC to 1 = years.
Hence, this Revision.
7. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary
evidence in the case is the following:-
PWs 1 to 3 had left the house on 04.02.1995 after locking
the same for going to Kudamaloor for attending a function there.
They returned on the next day afternoon. When they opened the
house, they found the gold and silver ornaments missing. The
door of the house was also lying open. PW2 informed the same
to the police over the telephone. Subsequently, on 21.06.1995
PW7, who was on patrol duty arrested the accused in connection
with Crime No. 55 of 1995 of the Kottayam Police Station. After
interrogation of the accused, he registered Crime No. 244 of
1995 against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 457, 461 and 380 IPC. Since the scene of occurrence
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 4:
was within the limits of his police station he prepared Ext.P1
scene mahazar. Based on the confession given by the revision
petitioner, he recovered MOs 1 to 3 from the railway purambokku
where the accused was residing along with his family. Ext.P3 is
the seizure mahazar under which MOs 1 to 3 were seized. Those
ornaments were kept concealed beneath a concrete slab in the
vicinity of the petitioner’s residence. Even though the
independent witnesses to the mahazar turned hostile to the
prosecution, the testimony of PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police
was credible enough to accept the recovery of MOs 1 to 3 at the
instance of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 have credibly identified
those material objects as belonging to them.
8. Under these circumstances, the conviction was rightly
recorded by the courts below and the same does not call for any
interference and is accordingly confirmed.
9. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the
lower appellate court also cannot be said to be excessive or
disproportionately harsh. Having regard to the daring manner in
which the offences were committed, I do not find any good
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 5:
ground to interfere with same as well.
In the result this revision is dismissed confirming the
conviction entered and the sentence passed against him.
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 6:
V. RAMKUMAR, J
————————————
CRL. R.P. No. 1295 of 2001
—————————————-
31st day of July, 2008
ORDER
CRL.R.P. NO. 1295/2001 : 7: