IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 420 of 2008()
1. KUMARAN, S/O. MURUKESAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :19/03/2008
O R D E R
V. Ramkumar, J.
………………………………….
Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008
…………………………………….
Dated: 19-03-2008
Order
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the first accused in C.C.
27 of 2007 on the file of J.F.C.M. I, Kozhikode for offences
punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 461 I.P.C. challenges
the conviction enetered and the sentence passed against him for
those offences.
2. What has been unravelled by the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is the
following:-
The place of occurrence is the residential house of the
brother of P.W.1 situated at Vengeri amsom of Kozhikode Taluk.
The said house is by the side of Kannadikal road near Kakkodi
bridge. Aneeshkumar the brother of P.W.1 was working abroad
and his wife is residing in her tarvad house. Hence the said
house kept locked. There were household articles including
Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:2:-
T.V.and Fridge inside the house. P.W.1 is residing at Edakkad.
In the afternoon of 5-12-2006 P.W.1 came to the house of his
brother. After opening the gate when he entered the courtyard
he found some of the household articles including lamps kept in
a bag outside the house. Getting suspicious he tried to enter the
house through the back door. At that time four persons ran out
of the house. With the help of the local people they were able to
catch three out of 4 people who had escaped. The police were
called and the three accused persons were handed over to the
police. Mos 1 to 4 in MO5 plastic bag are the articles which
were found in the courtyard. It was P.W.1 who gave the first
information to the police. P.W.2 is a local resident residing on
the rear of the house in question. He deposed that he could see
A3 there and the others were subsequently caught . P.W.3 is
the wife of Aneeshkumar who is the brother of P.W.1. She was
informed by P.W.1 about the theft and she rushed to the scene
of occurrence. She identified Mos 1 to 4 as her belongings.
P.W.5 is a witness to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. P.W.6 is the
investigating officer who recorded Ext.P1 F.I. statement from the
Chevayoor Polcie Station.
Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:3:-
3. Thus, all the three accused persons including the
revision petitioner/first accused were there inside the house
when P.W.1 reached there and Mos 1 to 4 were also kept outside
the house. The evidence clearly shows that the accused had
broken open the back door of the house and had also forced open
the receptacle inside the house to remove Mos 1 to 4. After
removing those properties from the house when they were about
to decamp with the properties that they were virtually caught
red handed by P.W.1 and others. The conviction was right
entered against the revision petitioner and the same is
accordingly confirmed.
4. What now survives for consideration is as to the
legality or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the revision petitioner/first accused was a first
offender and he did not deserve any punishment by way of
imprisonment. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting
instructions confirmed the fact that the revision petitioner is not
involved in any other crime. But that can hardly be a
circumstance to exempt the revision petitioner from
Crl.R.P. 420 of 2008 -:4:-
imprisonment. The occurrence shows that it was committed in
broad daylight. It was after breaking open the rear door of the
house that the accused persons gained their entry into the house
and removed the brazz plate, steel tap series and oil lamp from
the house. However, having regard to the fact that the
revision petitioner is a first offender, I am of the view that he
does not deserve rigorous imprisonment for three years under
Sec. 454 I.P.C. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the
revision petitioner under Sec. 454 is reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years. In all other respects the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner is confirmed. Accordingly,
confirming the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner,
the sentence imposed on him under Sec. 454 is reduced to two
years instead of three years. In all other respects the sentence
imposed by the Court below, is confirmed as above.
In the result, this Revision Petition is disposed of .
V. Ramkumar, Judge
ani/