The conviction under Section 511 of 379 IPC was upheld, but the sentence was modified due to mitigating factors such as lack of prior criminal record and time served.

O R D E R

Under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 511 of 379 IPC .

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.

No.2853 of 2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 511 of 379 IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that on 25.10.2009, the accused attempted to commit theft of Rs.500 from the pocket of PW1, while he was travelling in a bus from Kaloor to High Court junction. It is alleged that the accused thus attempted to commit theft when the bus reached Kacheripady Junction, at about 4.00 p.m.

4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and hearing both sides, found the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 511 of 379 IPC and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, under of 379 .

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No. 219 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam. The said court, by judgment dated

18.09.2017, dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Sri.P.S.Syamkuttan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Adv.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised only one submission in this revision petition ie; considering the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2009; the fact that the revision petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the fact that he has already undergone imprisonment for one month, the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and submitted that the offence alleged against the revision petitioner is very grave and no interference is required with the sentence.

9. The materials on record go to show that both the trial court and the appellate court have relied on the evidence of PW1, the victim, to find that the accused has committed the offence as alleged. His evidence shows that on 25.10.2009, while he was travelling through Ernakulam City in a private bus, the accused who was sitting in the back seat, attempted to take away a Rs.500/- note from his pocket. He caught the accused immediately and handed him to the police. He also identified the accused in the dock. It is to be seen that even though PW1 has been cross examined in extenso, nothing material has been brought out to disbelieve his version.

10. It is to be seen that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 also supports the evidence of PW1 to a considerable extent.

The evidence of PW2 shows that when the bus stopped in front of his traffic cabin, he had gone to the bus and had seen the accused detained by some persons. Thereafter, he informed the police station through wireless and the police came and took the accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 shows that on the accused being produced, he had recorded the FIS and arrested the accused. Both the trial court and the appellate court have, after appreciating the evidence of these witnesses has found them to be believable and I also, do not find any reason to take a different view.

11. Now the question that remains to be considered is the sentence. Considering the nature of the offence, its gravity, the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2009 and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is on a higher side and that