High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
JOLLY v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 587 of 2005  RD-KL 1110 (13 October 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 587 of 2005()
1. JOLLY, S/O.THOMAS,
1. STATE OF KERALA.
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2006
O R D E RThis revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 454 and 380 I.P.C. The petitioner was sentenced to R.I. for a period of 4 years under Section 380 I.P.C. No separate sentence is awarded under Section 454 I.P.C. Set off was allowed.
2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of MO1 series from the premises of PW1, President of a society, at 10 a.m. on 12.6.2000. The petitioner had allegedly committed theft in furtherance of the common intention which he shared with the second accused. The co-accused/A2 was found not guilty and acquitted by the trial court.
3. PW1 had lodged Ext.P1 complaint. The petitioner was arrested by PW11. On his interrogation, he furnished information about the disposal of MO1 series to PW5. Under Ext.P2 seizure Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 2 mahazar MO1 series other than the `Adakallu' were recovered by PW11 from PW5. PW5 had sold the `Adakallu' to PW7 and under Ext.P4 seizure mahazar the same was also recovered by PW11. In the course of investigation it was revealed that the stolen articles were transported by the accused from the shop of PW3 to the premises of PW5 in the autorikshaw of PW2. It was further revealed that earlier the articles were transported in the autorikshaw of PW4 to the shop of PW3 and an attempt was made to sell the same to PW3. PW3 did not purchase the same and hence they were taken to PW5. Ext.P5 is the F.I.R. registered on the basis of Ext.P1. Ext.P3 is the scene mahazar. PW8 is an attester to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW10 is the officer who registered the F.I.R.
4. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 and culminated with the final report submitted by PW11. PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were also marked. The accused took up a defence of total denial.
5. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 I.P.C. against the petitioner. Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 3 Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgment.
6. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. He only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence.
7. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground against the verdict of guilty and conviction, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order.
8. The theft of MO1 series from the premises of PW1 stands established satisfactorily by the evidence of PW1 corroborated by Ext.P1 F.I. statement. The evidence of PWs. 2 to 5 show clearly how the accused had dealt with the stolen articles after the commission of the crime and before they were recovered by PW11 under Exts. P2 and P4. The evidence Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 4 of PW11 shows how he received information when the accused was interrogated after his arrest and he confessed to the crime. Satisfactory evidence is thus available before court to indicate the complicity of the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. Allegations are serious. It is evident that the petitioner is involved in other crimes also. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years. The sentence imposed has been directed to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in other cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a polio afflicted person. He has subsequently suffered an accident. Leniency may be shown, it is prayed.
10. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, I am satisfied that leniency can be shown on the question of sentence and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 380 I.P.C. can be reduced to R.I. for a period of 2 years. No separate sentence has been imposed under Section 454 I.P.C. by the court below.
11. In the result:
Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 5
(a) This revision petition is allowed in part.
(b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are upheld. ) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced to R.I. for a period of 2 years. The impugned judgment is upheld in all other respects.
12. Communicate copy of the order to the court below forthwith. Necessary revised warrant shall be issued by the court below. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 6 R. BASANT Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005
O R D E RCrl.R.P.No. 587 of 2005 7 13th October, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.