IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3217 of 2007()
1. SURESH, C.NO. 5235
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :11/12/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 3217 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.53 of 2005 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. He was
convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years
each for the offences under section 454 and 380 of Indian Penal
Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence
under section 461 of IPC. The sentences were directed to be
run consecutively. Revision petitioner was in custody at the
time of trial. From jail he challenged the conviction in Crl.
Appeal 267/2006 before Sessions Court, Thrissur. Learned
Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is
challenged in this revision petition from jail.
2. Learned counsel Advocate Mathai Varkey
Muthirenthy appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned counsel considering the evidence on record
and concurrent conviction did not challenge the conviction. It
CRRP 3217/2007 2
was submitted that learned Magistrate awarded consecutive
sentence without showing any reason and the sentence may be
directed to be run concurrently.
4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below,
I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The learned
Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence
in the proper perspective. Evidence of PW1 establish that gold
ornaments weighing 9 sovereigns were stolen from his house on
25.8.2001. Recovery of MO1 under Ext.P2 on the information
furnished by revision petitioner proved by the evidence of PW7,
the investigating officer, establish the offences against revision
petitioner. Conviction is perfectly legal. Considering the nature
of the offences and fact that revision petitioner is involved in
other similar cases establish that sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for two years each for the offence under section
380 and 454 of IPC is reasonable. But the direction to run
consecutive sentences on the facts of the case is not justifiable.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel, learned Magistrate
did not show any reason why the rigorous imprisonment for two
years awarded for the offences under section 454 and 380 of IPC
and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under
CRRP 3217/2007 3
section 461 of IPC are to run consecutively. Learned Sessions
Judge also did not consider that question. Interest of justice
does not warrant such a direction.
Revision is disposed confirming the conviction and
sentences but providing that the sentences shall run
concurrently.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-