IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 60 of 2010()
1. MOHANAN, CONVICT NO.1501,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.UNNIKRISHANAN V ALAPPAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
.............................................
CRL.R.P. NO. 60 OF 2010
............................................
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010
ORDER
In this Revision filed from the Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram, the Revision petitioner who was the first
accused in C.C. No. 169 of 1995 on the file the Court of the Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences
punishable under Sections 457, 392 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.
challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against
him for offences punishable under Sectios 457 and 392 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised
follows:-
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common
intention to commit robbery from Shop No. T.C. III/1097 where
P.W.1 was conducting business in the name and style of “Mini
Cold Storage” by the side of the Kesavadasapuram-Mannanthala
M.C. Road, near Paruthippara junction criminally trespassed into
the said shop room at 8 p.m. On 1-6-1994. The first accused
brandishing a knife at P.W.1 who was sitting near the table
threatened him by saying not to move or else he would kill him.
Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:2:-
(” , “). Uttering the above
words A1 caught hold of the shirt of P.W.1 and dragged him out
of the seat the snatched the day’s collection amounting to Rs.
5,000/- along with a pass book kept on the table. A2 damaged the
telephone causing a loss of Rs. 100/-. A3 threatened P.Ws 2 and
3. The accused persons have thereby committed the
aforementioned offences
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 6
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1
to P7.. and one kinife as MO1.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Sec. 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 24-09-1997 found the revision 0etitioner guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 457 and 392 I.P.C. For the
Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:3:-
conviction under Sections 457 and 392 I.P.C. He was sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for four years each with a direction that
the sentences shall run consecutively. On appeal preferred by
the petitioner as Crl. Appeal 9/98 before the Sessions court,
Thiruvananthapuram, the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 2-7-2005 confirmed
the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this
Revision.
6. I heard Adv. Sri. Unni V. Alappat appearing for the
Revision Petitioner on State Brief and the learned Public
Prosecutor. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction
entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction
has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful
evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this
Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said
conviction which is accordingly 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 counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner made a fervent plea for reduction of the
sentence. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above
Crl.R.P. No. 60 of 2010 -:4:-
submissions. This Court had called for a report from the
District Probation Officer, Thiruvaanthapuram. In the report dated
18-2-2010, the District Probation Officer has mentioned that the
petitioner is an accused in 16 cases most of which involving
offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 379 etc. Under
these circumstances, penal servitude by way of incarceration alone
can act as an effective disincentive. I, therefore, confirm the
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. However, the
direction that the sentences shall run consecutively was not called
for on the materials before the courts below. No evidence was
adduced before the Courts below to prove the involvement of the
petitioner in other crimes. Accordingly it is ordered that the
sentences under each count shall run concurrently.
In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the
conviction and sentence but directing that the substantive
sentences shall run concurrently.
Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge.
ani/ /true copy/
P.S. to Judge