Criminal Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2008 · Kerala High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, this Revision is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Even though the learned counsel appearing for there vision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the CRL.R.P. NO.2194/2008 :3:conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral…
- Para 77. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J. ===========Crl.R.P. No. 2194 of 2008====================Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008.
O R D E RThe petitioner who was the first accused in C.C.No.329 of2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissurfor an offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC,challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below.
The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 9.1.2000 at about 1.30 a.m., the two accused persons in furtherence of their common intention committed theft of their motor cycle owned by PW2 bearing registration No.KBR 4241.
On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 8 documents as Exts.P1 to P8. CRL.R.P. NO.2194/2008 :2:
After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.
The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 6.7.2005 found the revision petitioner (who alone stood trial) guilty of the offence under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to paya fine of Rs.2,000/- and on default to pay a fine suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal preferred by there vision petitioner as Crl. Appeal 578/2005 before the SessionsCourt, Thrissur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31.1.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction entered and sentence. Hence this revision. Hence, this Revision.
Even though the learned counsel appearing for there vision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the CRL.R.P. NO.2194/2008 :3:conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed.
Operative part
What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passedhereinafter. Even according to the prosecution, the revision petitioner was aged only 20 years on the date of occurrence. Although the relevant date for reckoning the age of the accused for the purpose of probation is the date of first conviction, the fact that the revision petitioner was below the age of 21 on the date of occurrence cannot be totally lost right of. This Court had called for the report of the District Probationary Officer, Thrissurregarding the antecedents of the revision petitioner. It is reported that the revision petitioner was a first offender and the CRL.R.P. NO.2194/2008 :4:only breadwinner of his family, that his wife is pregnant and solely dependant on him, that his parents and relatives are interested in him, that he has a permanent place of abode and that it was his lack of forethought which might have paved the way for his committing the offence which he denies. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on probation. Accordingly, for the conviction rendered against there vision petitioner under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC, he is released on probation for good conduct for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur on 28.8.2008for executing a bond in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The period of probation shall be one year. He shall execute a bond before the Magistrate on such terms which the Magistrate may deem fit. In the result, this Revision is disposed of. Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008.V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.bkn
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Revision is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313(1)(b); theProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 4; Probation ofOffenders Act, 1958 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 31 Jan 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.