Kerala High Court
Revision/ vs By Adv. Sri.K.V.Ramabhadran on 11 January, 2012
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933
CRRP.No. 3006 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------------
CRA.645/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE
CC.453/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUNNAMANGALAM
............
REVISION/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2
----------------------------------------------
DEVI, W/O.VIGI, AGED 28 YEARS,
PALANI AGRAVARAM POLLACHI,
NOW RESIDING AT KOLLAM MUKKU,
KOYILANDY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
CRIME NO.307/2009.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
svs
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2012
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was prosecuted along with another person namely Thenmozhi who was arrayed as the 1st accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w 34 of IPC. Both the accused were found guilty of the offence alleged against them. They were therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. Set off as per law was allowed.
2. Crl.Appeal by the accused did not succeed. Conviction and sentence were confirmed. 2nd accused has come up in revision.
3. The incident was narrated by the prosecution is as follows:-
4. On 27.06.2009 while PW1 along with PW2 had gone to Kunnamangalam from Anappara and they were waiting for an Autorikshaw, PW3 came along with his Autorikshaw. They mounted the Autorikshaw and at that time the accused -:2:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 were waiting nearby. The accused too got in. When PW1 and her child got down from the Autorikshaw in front of Saj Division at Kunnamangalam, the accused 1 and 2 also got down from the Autorikshaw. Then PW1 found that the chain worn by the child was missing and she raised her voice. PW 3 is said to have chased the accused and caught one of the accused with the help of the public. On getting information PW13 station officer of the nearby police station reached the place of incident and prepared Ext.P2 scene Mahazar. He recorded the first information statement of PW1 and registered crime on that basis as per Ext.P5 FIR. The recovery of MO1 was done by the women police constable as per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. He completed investigation and the charge was laid before the lower court.
5. JFCM Kunnamangalam before whom final report was laid, took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused before the said court all formalities were complied with. Charge was framed under Section 392 r/w -:3:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 Section 34 of IPC and was read out to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution therefore examined PWs 1 to 13 and had Exts.P1 to P6 marked. MO1 was identified and marked. After the close of prosecution evidence the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against them and maintained that they were innocent. They had Exts.D1 and D2 marked in their defence.
6. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused and therefore convicted and sentenced as already mentioned. In appeal it was confirmed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that the court below had omitted to note the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1, 2 and 3 and also the fact that there is no witness for the actual seizure of M.O. from the body of either 1st -:4:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 accused or the 2nd accused. The evidence is also wanting as to show from whom among the two persons the gold chain was actually recovered. It is also pointed out that PW 13 the Officer in charge of the Police Station did not witness the seizure.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that both the courts below have considered the evidence in considerable detail and had come to the conclusion that except for some minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, prosecution case stands proved through their evidence. The discrepancies were found by the courts of insignificant nature and that did not effect the prosecution case at all. The learned counsel went on to point out that both the ladies were apprehended from public place itself and it is highly improbable that they would have been falsely implicated.
9. PW1 is the mother of the child from whom the chain was snatched away by the accused. Her evidence to the -:5:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 effect that she had along with PW2 taken her child to see a Doctor. They mounted an Autorikshaw at Anappara and when they mounted the Autorikshaw accused who stood nearby also mounted along with them. When they reached Kunnamanglalam the accused got down from the autorikshaw before PW 1and her son and they left the place. While she was giving fair to the Autorikshaw driver, it is stated that the accused snatched chain from the neck of her child and ran away. When she raised her voice, people rushed to the place and the Autorikshaw driver who is examined as PW3 caught the accused with the help of public. She would further say that she along with others went to the Police station and from the accused chain was recovered. She would say that she had given the first information statement.
10. PW2 admittedly was travelling along with PW1. She is closely related to PW1. She had narrated the incident as narrated by PW1. She would say that chain was recovered from the 1st accused namely Thenmozhi. -:6:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011
10. PW3 is the Autorikshaw driver. He would say that on 27.06.2009 while he was on a way from Chethukadavu he was hired PWS 1 and 2. Then they got into the Autorikshaw, the accused persons who were waiting nearby too got in. When they reached Saj Division at Kunnamangalam, one of the passengers from behind asked them to stop his vehicle before Saj Division. He was paid Rs.10/- by that person and he returned Rs.2. He saw them walking away far from the place of occurrence. Soon thereafter it seems he heard PW 1and 2 crying that child lost his chain. He would say that he ran after the accused, first apprehended the 2nd accused namely the revision petitioner herein and entrusted to the public who had by then gathered at the place at that time. Thereafter he ran after the 1st accused and caught her also, then he says that soon thereafter the police came to the place and took them to the police station. PW5 would say that he had occasion to see two ladies being arrested and then he left the place. He had only hearsay knowledge about the incident. PW7 is -:7:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 one of the scene Mahazar witness. He says that incident was on 27.06.2009 at about 12 Noon, he was coming to the Kunnamangalam and when he reached the junction he found a crowd. He stopped his vehicle and went to crowded place. He saw a Police Jeep at the spot. He recognized PW1 and 2 and the child. He enquired with them as to the cause for the crowd. He was given to understand that the chain of the son of PW1 has been snatched and it was done by the two ladies. He would further says that he saw police taking away the accused persons and PWs 1 and 2 to the police station, he also followed them. He says PW 1 laid complaint before the police. When the accused was searched by the woman constable MO1 was recovered.
12. PW9 a woman constable has conducted the search. She spoke about the date of incident and that she had gone to the place with SI of police and taken into custody the two Tamilian ladies who were detained by the public at the place of occurrence. They were taken to the police station where they were searched by her. She says that she -:8:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 recovered a gold chain from the body of the revision petitioner. She entrusted the same to the S.I. of Police showed it to PW1. She recognised the chain as the one snatched away from the child's neck. She would further say that the accused were taken to hospital and examined. She identified the signature of the seizure mahazar and also identified the MO1 as the chain recovered by her. PW 13 speaks in terms of the prosecution case.
13. The main contention raised by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are inconsistent as PW3 would say that two Tamilian ladies who travelled in the autorikshaw had paid him and thereafter gave away. It is thereafter that PWs 1and 2 got out of the autorikshaw. Referring to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 it is pointed out that it was after they had got out from the Autorikshaw while tamilian ladies had dismounted. Thereafter that the snatching had taken place. It is also pointed out that while PW1 is unable to state from whom the chain was recovered, PW2 was definite -:9:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 that it was from the body of 1st accused the chain had been recovered.
14. Assuming that there are discrepancies, they are of minor nature as found by the courts. The prosecution case is that on the date incident the accused were travelling with the victims in the same autorikshaw and they had snatched the chain from the neck of the child of PW1. As far as the essential matters are considered their evidence corroborates each other. When witnesses are examined before the court, after a lapse of time there are bound to be minor inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence. If the discrepancies are in respect of the insignificant aspects they are to be discarded.
15. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 to 3 to show that they had any motive to falsely implicate the accused and come forward with a false story of snatching away the chain from the neck of the child of PW1. The evidence is clear to the effect that when PWs 1 and 2 got out of the Autorikshaw along with the child of PW1, the -:10:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 chain was snatched by one among the accused. The evidence is so clear to the effect that the accused were chased and apprehended by the Autorickshaw driver.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that nature of MO1 recovered does not show that it was broken as claimed by PWs 1 and 2. The description of the MO1 only shows that hook of the chain had become loose. That was not the version given by PW1 and so that evidence cannot be believed.
12. It is too difficult to accept the above argument. It is true that PWs 1 and 2 used the word ' ' (broken). That only meant that the chain was snatched from the neck of the child. It does not mean that the chain was broken into pieces. At any rate it is clear that the chain was snatched from the neck of the son of PW1 and it was recovered from the body of the revision petitioner. Of course there is slight discrepancies between the evidence of PW2 and PW9. To recollect PW2 would say that the chain -:11:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 was recovered from the body of the 1st accused, while PW9 the woman constable conducted the search she would say that it is recovered from the body of 2nd accused. Discrepancy if at all any is too insignificant to belie the prosecution case.
13. It is very vehemently contended that the seizure was not evidenced by any person and the sole person who deposed about the seizure is PW9. It is pointed out that neither PW1 nor PW3 or the investigating officer had witnessed the search and recovery.
14. One needs to remember that the search conducted by the woman police constable was of two women accused persons. The investigating officer could not have been present at the time of search. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 wherein she says that she had recovered the gold chain from the body of the 2nd accused. No reason is attributed to her to falsely implicate 2nd accused.
15. Both the courts below have considered the -:12:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 evidence in considerable detail and had come to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against accused. The appellate court had in fact independently considered the entire evidence and had come to the identical conclusion that the offence had been made out. The findings are essentially based on the evidence on record and are not shown to be perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. If that be so, interference in the revisional jurisdiction is quite un-called for.
Considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it is conducted, it is felt that sentence imposed is reasonable.
In the result, this revision petition is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. I do so, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE -:13:- Crl.R.P.No.3006 of 2011 kkj