C P Junaid vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the revision petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.280/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, assail conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate as per judgment dated 18.08.2012 in the above case as well as judgment in Criminal Appeal No.550 of 2012 dated 04.12.2015 imposed by the Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara, confirming the conviction and sentence.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

Summary of the case: Prosecution allegation is that at about 04.15 hours on 06.12.2007 accused Nos.1 and 2 came on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 18C 9945 and the 2nd accused snatched away a gold chain worn by the second witness. Thereafter, the accused hided from the place of incident. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter `IPC’ for short). During investigation, accused 1 and 2 were arrested and thereafter they were enlarged on bail. Trial court tried the matter after complying the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 and M.O 1 were marked.

During prosecution evidence, Exts.D1 to D13 contradictions were marked on the side of the defence. Though opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence after questioning them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no defence evidence adduced.

The trial court meticulously analysed the evidence and found that the accused/revision petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Set off for the period in between 14.03.2008 to 21.07.2008 also was allowed. M.O 1, which was in the custody of PW6 was given to PW2.

The revision petitioners/accused 1 and 2 challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court before the appellate court and the appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence.

While challenging the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused would submit that the evidence available is quite insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and, therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court went wrong in finding commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC by the revision petitioner. Further, it is submitted that Exts.D1 to D13 contradictions were not taken into consideration and also the court below blindly believed the evidence of PW6 to hold that the accused herein sold the stolen gold chain to PW6 and in turn the same was recovered from PW6 as per the disclosure statement given by the accused while they were in custody in another crime.

Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as well as PW6, supported by other evidence, in a case where the stolen gold chain was recovered from PW6 to whom the accused herein sold the same after committing theft.

This Court is apprised of the fact that this Court is exercising the power of revision and the same is not available to re-appreciate the evidence as in an appeal. In this matter, based on Ext.P1 F.I statement given by the PW1, who is the husband of PW2, who had no direct knowledge about the occurrence, FIR was registered alleging commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC by the revision petitioner. PW2 is the wife of PW1 and her evidence is that at about 04.15 hours on 06.12.2007, the accused herein came in a motor bike and snatched away the gold chain and disappeared themselves from the place of occurrence. PW3 is a school bus driver, who also witnessed the occurrence. He supported the prosecution. It is crucial to note that M.O 1 is the alleged stolen gold chain recovered by the police as per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar from the custody of PW6. Evidence of PW6 is very crucial. PW6 deposed before the court that M.O 1 was sold by the accused soon after the occurrence and the police seized the same from his custody as per Ext.P3. PWs 5 and 7 are the witnesses to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW5 supported the recovery and stated that at the time of such recovery, M.O 1 was at the shop of PW6. When considering the materials available in this matter relied upon by the trial court as well as the appellate court while entering into conviction and sentence, nothing could be seen to shake the prosecution case. Even though Exts.D1 to D13 documents were marked during the prosecution evidence, the courts below held that those are not material contradictions to disbelieve the prosecution case in any manner and accordingly these contradictions were not considered. Thus it appears that conviction as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court are only to be justified and no interference is called for at this stage.

Accordingly, the Crl.R.P stands dismissed. Consequently the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners stand confirmed. The bail bond of the revision petitioners stands cancelled with direction to the revision petitioners to surrender before the trial court, within ten days from today. On failure to surrender, the trial court is directed to execute the sentence without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the court concerned for information and compliance.