Sony vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 603 of 2010()


1. SONY, S/O.JOSE, KALARIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :15/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                ===================
                   Crl.R.P. No. 603 of 2010
                ===================
         Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.

                             O R D E R

In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401

Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1356 of

2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala

for an offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 IPC

challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed

against him concurrently by the courts below for the said offence.

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as

follows:

On 18.10.2006, at about 1 a.m., A1 to A3 in furtherance of

their common intention to commit theft of two bicycles, criminally

trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant and

committed theft of two BSA bicycles kept in the car porch of the

residential building of the de facto complainant within the limits

of Cherthala Police Station.

3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge

framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned

Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:2:-

offence, 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 4 documents as Exts.

P1 to P4 and two material objects as Mos. 1 and 2.

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the

accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with

regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them

in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those

circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not

adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.

5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment

dated 23.01.2009 acquitted A3, but convicted A1 and A2 and

sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for three months

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under

Section 379 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner

as Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 2009 before the Sessions Court,

Alappuzha, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track -I,

Alappuzha as per judgment dated 18.12.2009 confirmed the

conviction entered against the revision petitioner but reduced the

Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:3:-

sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine

of Rs.1000/-. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this

revision.

6. Even though 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

as to whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by

the lower appellate court is disproportionately harsh or excessive.

This Court called for a report of the District Probation Officer,

Alappuzha. As per the report dated 09.03.2010, the District

Probation Officer has, inter alia, reported that the revision

petitioner is not having a criminal background and that he got

involved in this occurrence due to lack of education and economic

struggles in the family besides friendship with undesirable

Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:4:-

elements. The District Probation Officer has recommended the

release of the petitioner on probation for at least two years.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

inclined to release the petitioner on probation for a period of

three years. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on

29.03.2010 and execute a bond for a period of three years under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He shall be

under the supervision of the District Probation Officer for the

entire period of three years. The Magistrate shall fix the other

conditions including the periodicity of the appearance before the

District Probation Officer.

This revision is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

Crl.R.P. No. 603/2010 -:5:-