IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1398 of 2009()
1. KRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :23/05/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1398 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009.
ORDER
Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent.
2. Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
3. This revision is directed against the judgment of Additional
Sessions Court-II, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.498 of 2007 confirming
conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections
451 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”).
4. Case is that on 14.8.2003 at about 1.30 a.m. petitioner committed
house breaking and theft of digital camera from the house of PW1. PW4, Circle
Inspector, Harippad arrested the petitioner in connection with another case
(Crime No.37 of 2005) and when questioned, petitioner allegedly gave
information regarding the incident in the case on hand and thereon, Crime No.38
of 2005 was registered. On 17.1.2005 PW4, on the information given by the
petitioner is said to have effected discovery of MO1, digital camera from PW5.
Ext.P3 is the mahazar for seizure. PW5 is also an attestor in Ext.P3. PW4 has
given evidence regarding the discovery as per Ext.P3. PW5 has given evidence
that petitioner sold MO1 to him and later, he produced the same before PW4.
PW1 produced the warranty card of the digital camera which PW4 seized as per
Ext.P2. (It is however seen that the warranty card is not marked in evidence.)
Crl.R.P.No.1398/2009
2
PW1 has given evidence regarding the alleged theft. He has identified MO1,
the digital camera as the stolen property. According to PW1 the incident
occurred after midnight of 14.8.2003 and the camera kept in the eastern room of
ground floor in a bag was stolen by the petitioner. Learned magistrate found
that petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 451 and 380 of
the Code. Appellate court after consideration of the evidence concurred with the
finding. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings
entered by the courts below as to the commission of offence.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, petitioner has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 451 of the Code and simple imprisonment for
three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 380 of the Code. It is not
disputed that petitioner is involved in another case also involving similar offence
(Crime No.37 of 2005). In these circumstances I do not consider it necessary to
invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However considering the
fact that petitioner was aged 43 years at the time of incident, I am inclined to
think that simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and fine of
Rs.5,00/- each is sufficient in the ends of justice.
Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines:
Sentences awarded for offences punishable under Sections 451
and 380 of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment for six months each
and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment,
to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks each. It is made clear that the
Crl.R.P.No.1398/2009
3
period sentence undergone in this case during the period of investigation/trial
shall be set off against the substantive sentence awarded hereby. Substantive
sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
Trial court shall send the modified warrant to the prison where the
petitioner is detained.
Crl.M.A.No.4185 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks