IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2172 of 2009()
1. RAVI @ KOCHA RAVI, 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. THIMOTHY, 38 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P. NO. 2172 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This revision is preferred against the confirmation of
conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge,
Thrissur in a S.394 IPC offence. In turn the said appeal was
preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in C.C.184/98. The
brief facts necessary are stated as follows.
2. It is the case of the complainant that while he was
proceeding to the bus-stand after taking a cup of tea from the
Jaya Hotel in Swaraj Round of Thrissur town the accused two
in numbers followed him and demanded money and when he
refused to pay the amount one person shut his mouth and the
other person attempted to take money from the pocket which
he resisted successfully but the accused hit him on the
forehead with a stone resulting in injuries to him. The
learned counsel for the appellant would contend that except
Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009
-2-
for the version of PW1 all other independent witnesses had
turned hostile and therefore it is not at all safe to rely upon
the evidence of PW1 to arrive at a conviction. Just because a
person is interested in giving evidence in a case, it shall not be
discarded especially when he is the victim. Bu when such an
evidence is adduced and the conviction is to be based on the
said evidence the law cautions that the said evidence should
be meticulously scrutinized to find out whether it is intrinsically
reliable and inherently probable. If that test is satisfied then
the uncorroborated evidence tendered by a victim can be used
for conviction in a criminal case. With this in mind I had
meticulously gone through the evidence of PW1. PW1 in clear
crystal categorical terms had stated that he is acquainted with
the accused who had attacked him and that how the incident
had taken place. He had clearly deposed that while he was
returning after a work with respect to a construction of a
building and after disbursing the workers he proceeded to
hotel Jaya for taking a cup of tea and thereafter he was
proceeding to the bus stand and it was at that time the
Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009
-3-
accused who are well acquainted with him followed him and
demanded money and when such demand was resisted he was
attacked and he sustained injuries. I find his evidence is not
shattered in the cross examination.
3. The learned counsel points out that the identity is
not proper and there is no evidence to show that there was
light. Both the Courts below had applied their mind to this
question. The identity does not loom large for the reason that
immediately after reaching the hospital when he was
questioned by the concerned he had given the names of these
two accused and he had also clearly explained in his evidence
that they were familiar to him. So identity is proper.
4. So far as the light is concerned, the incident had
taken place in the heart of Thrissur town namely Swaraj round
where there is light through out night and one cannot expect
the Thrissur town to be dark at 8.15 p.m. unless there is a
power failure. So this argument also cannot be accepted. So
I find the evidence of PW1 is proper, correct and acceptable.
It is also to be remembered that the Court sitting in the
Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009
-4-
revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the concurrent findings
of the Court below on facts only if there is a total mis
appreciation of the evidence by a perverse approach. But here
the approach is proper and correct and so there cannot be any
doubt regarding the acceptability of the evidence of PW1. For
attracting the offence u/s 394 IPC, namely robbery, there
need not be actual theft, in the process of theft when there is
injury inflicted it will amount to robbery. It is also proved in
this case. Therefore I sustain the conviction u/s 394 IPC.
5. Now, turning to the question of sentence. Though
the charge is u/s 394 IPC, namely robbery, the incident itself
speaks that the attempt was to take some money from the
pocket of this person that too by persons who are familiar with
him. So I feel in the circumstances some leniency can be
shown and therefore I reduce the sentence to one of three
months imprisonment.
In the result the Crl.Revision is disposed of as follows.
(1) The finding of guilt u/s 394 IPC is confirmed.
(2) The sentence is modified and the accused are
Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009
-5-
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three months.
(3) They are entitled to set off as contemplated u/s 428
Cr.P.C.
(4) The lower Court shall execute the sentence.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
Crl.A. 2172 OF 2009
-6-
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P. No. 2172 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = =
J U D G M E N T
7th July, 2009