Prasad vs State Of Kerala

The revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.189/1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva and the appellant in

Crl.Appeal (Jail) No.661/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable

under Sections 454, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').

The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.9.1993 at 4.45 am., the accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention broke open the house

of PW1 and committed theft of gold ornaments and thereafter the stolen articles were sold to accused Nos.3 to 5. The accused Nos.3 to 5 received

the gold ornaments knowing that the gold ornaments were stolen articles.

On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found accused Nos.3 and 4 not guilty of the offences alleged against them and accordingly

they were acquitted. The case against accused No.5 was refiled as C.C.No.344/2001. However, the accused 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 454 of the IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years each for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section

461 of the IPC. Set off was also allowed.

PW1 lodged Ext.P1 FIS before police on 25.9.1993 at about 5 pm. PW1 stated that his house was broken open and his gold ornaments were stolen.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva arrested the revision petitioner/1st accused and the 2nd accused at Thiruvananthapuram on 03.11.1993. On the

information given by the revision petitioner/1st accused, accused Nos.2 to 5 were arrested.

According to PW1, his house was broken open and gold ornaments were stolen on 25.9.1993. He would say that 19 sovereigns of gold ornaments

were stolen from his custody. PW2 the wife of PW1 gave similar evidence and identified MOs.1 series to 7. PW2 claimed that MO1 series were

purchased by PW1 for her and that she received MOs.2 to 6 from her house.

Ext.P9 is the mahazar of the place of occurrence. It is stated in Ext.P9 that wooden bars of the window were broken and the almirah at the

residence was found broken open.

According to PW1, he had no document to show ownership of MO1 series to MO6. However, PWs.1 and 2 identified MO1 series to MO6 before

court. \

PW3 claimed that the 1st accused had entrusted MO5 with him for sale and that he in turn sold the same to PW6. The Sub Inspector came to his

house with the accused on 03.11.1993. PW3 claimed to have pointed out to the police PW6 who produced MO5. He is an attestor in the seizure

mahazar. PW3 identified MO5. PW6, who is running a jewellery shop, stated that he had purchased MO5 from PW3. He also contended that police

came to his shop and recovered MO5. PW7 is an attestor in the seizure mahazar.

PW8 is running a private finance under the name and style 'Girija Finance' and stated that the 1st accused sold MO2 to him for Rs.1,900/-. The

police came to him with the 1st accused. Accordingly, he produced MO2. He is an attestor in Ext.P4 seizure mahazar.

PW5 is a financier advancing loan on the security of gold ornaments. He claimed that one Udayakumar who is no more pledged a pair of studs.

According to him, the police came to him with the mother of Udayakumar and he produced MOs.1 to 3 to the police which, the latter took to custody

as per Ext.P2.

PW14 is the fingerprint expert. Ext.P5 is his report. PW14 examined the scene of occurrence on 26.9.1993 and developed 8 latent fingerprints

from the scene. Out of which one print was found fit for comparison. On 29.10.1993, PW14 received the fingerprint slip of the 1st accused from the

Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva. On examination, PW14 gave an opinion that the fingerprint developed from the scene tallied with the right thumb

impression of the 1st accused.

PW19 the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva recorded Ext.P1 and registered the case. As part of investigation, PW19 recovered MO7 series of

broken pieces of the wooden bars of the window from the place of occurrence. PW19 arrested the 1st accused on 03.11.1993 at 6 am. from the

Railway Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He recorded the Statement of the 1st accused at the Thampannoor Police Station. On the basis of the

information, he recovered MO2. From his statement it is disclosed that he had given studs to his mother for pledging. On the information given by the

mother, MO1 series were taken to custody from a financier, namely, 'Krishna Fund'.

PWs.3, 6 and 7 adduced evidence regarding the recovery of MO5. PWs.1 and 2 identified MO5 as belonging to them. MO1 series were

recovered from Krishna Fund as per the information furnished by the accused. The evidence of PW14 and Ext.P5 would show that the fingerprint of

the 1st accused was found at the place of occurrence. It has come out in evidence that the accused was involved in several other cases. His

fingerprint was made available at the Crime Bureau. Hence the contention that the accused was arrested on 03.11.93 and there was no chance for

collecting his fingerprint before that date does not arise for consideration.

One of the basic importance of fingerprints is that it helps in establishing identity of a person with minimum time and efforts; and then enabling

speedy investigation. The fingerprint evidence has been referred to as reliable piece of evidence. They are also permanent and do not undergo any

change. The distinguishing features of the fingerprint are recorded by those who work with the Government. A database or collection of these prints is

available to Law Enforcement Agencies in finding someone and matching the prints for evidence in criminal proceedings. In the case on hand, it was

brought out that the fingerprint of the accused was traced out from the scene of occurrence and was compared with the fingerprint of the accused by

the expert. The evidence tendered by PW14 is admissible.

Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently held that the revision petitioner/1st accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 380,

454 and 461 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Unless there is violation of the procedure or perversity in reasoning resulting in miscarriage or total

failure of justice, it would not be proper to interfere with the concurrent judgments of conviction. There is nothing on record to show that the view of

evidence taken by the trial court as well as the appellate court is perverse. Hence, the conviction under Sections 380, 454 and 461 read with Section

34 of the IPC is confirmed.

Coming to the question of sentence, the trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under

Section 454 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one

year for the offence under Section 461 of the IPC respectively. The occurrence in this case was on 25.9.1993. The sentence imposed against the 1st

accused is reduced to two years for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC. For the rest of the sentences rendered no modification is required and

the same stand confirmed. The 1st accused is entitled to get admissible set off as stated by the trial court in its judgment.

Resultantly, the criminal revision petition is allowed in part. By sustaining the conviction under Sections 380, 454 and 461 read with Section 34 of

the IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC is reduced to two years.

For the rest of the offences, the sentences imposed by the two courts below are confirmed without any modification. The revision petitioner is entitled

to get admissible set off as stated by the trial court in its judgment.

The Registry is directed to send back the records to the trial court for execution of the sentence.