Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARAVANAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARAVANAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 880 of 2003 [2006] RD-KL 838 (20 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 880 of 2003()

1. SARAVANAN, CONVICT NO.2883,
... Petitioner

2. SASIKUMAR, CONVICT NO.2882,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT ASHA CHERIAN (STATE BRIEF)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :20/09/2006

O R D E R

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J

Crl.R.P.NO.880 OF 2003 Dated, this the 20 th day of September, 2006

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No.84/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Aluva are the revision petitioners. They were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the conviction and sentence the petitioners filed Crl.Appeal (Jail) No.700/2002. That was also dismissed. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Viyyur,Thrissur challenging those concurrent findings.

2. The allegation against the petitioners was that they committed theft of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL7/M-5408 owned by PW3 during the night of 19.6.2001. The petitioners were arrested in connection with another case and during the course of investigation they confessed of having committed the offence involved in this case also. After investigation final report was filed. On the side of prosecution PWs 1 to 8 were examined. Exts.P1 to P4 proved and Crl.R.P.No.880/2003 -:2:- marked. After the evidence of prosecution was over the revision petitioners were questioned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. They denied all the allegations. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for two years. Criminal Appeal (Jail) No.700/2002 filed by the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed. Hence this Criminal Revision Petition.

3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners had already suffered the entire period of sentence and as such no useful purpose will be served by considering the matter on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously argued before me that the finding of the court below that the petitioners committed theft of motor cycle is not based on any legal or acceptable evidence. It is argued that the sentence imposed is also highly excessive.

4. The prosecution case is that the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL7/M-5408 belongs to PW3. It was kept in the house compound of PW1 during the night of 19.6.2001. It was stolen from that place. PW1 is the brother Crl.R.P.No.880/2003 -:3:- of PW3. He gave evidence to the effect that during the relevant period he was using the motor cycle. He deposed that during the night he parked the motor cycle in the car porch and went to sleep and when he woke up in the next morning the motor cycle was stolen. He gave Ext.P1 complaint. The evidence of PW3 the owner of the motor cycle is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW1. PW2 who is an independent witness also gave evidence to the effect that the motor cycle belongs to PW3. So the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the motor cycle is owned by PW3 was stolen during the night of 19.6.2001 from the court yard of PW1. The next question arising for consideration is that whether it was the revision petitioners who committed the theft of the motor cycle. On 14.11.2001 the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery was checking the vehicles at University Junction. The petitioners came there riding this motor cycle. They were intercepted and questioned. The revision petitioners confessed of having committed theft of motor cycle. They also confessed that they erased the registration number and wrote a forged number in the number plate. The evidence of PW8, the Circle Inspector of Police proves the fact that he arrested the accused and questioned them. The evidence of PW8 is corroborated by the evidence of PW2. The evidence adduced in this case also shows that on 14.11.2001 the accused were arrested while they were riding the stolen motor cycle. The courts below found that in the facts and Crl.R.P.No.880/2003 -:4:- circumstances of the case, it was the accused who committed the theft of motor cycle. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact. Considering the nature of the offence alleged the sentence imposed is also not excessive. There is no scope for interference in the Criminal Revision Petition and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGE

cks Crl.R.P.No.880/2003 -:5:-

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

Crl.R.P.NO.880 OF 2003

ORDER

20th September, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.