Concurrent findings of conviction under dacoity are upheld as supported by substantial evidence.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section

395 I.P.C, of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in S.C No.285/2000 and Crl.A No.501/2002 respectively, upon the accused Nos.4 and 5 in that case, are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.05.2000 at about 11:30 a.m, the petitioners herein, along with accused Nos.1 to 3, committed dacoity by robbing at knife point, an amount of Rs.50,000/- which PW1 was carrying in a bag, while standing at the bus stop waiting shed on the eastern side of the Ernakulam Maharaja’s College ground.

3. In the trial before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9, and brought on record 8 documents as Exts.P1 to P8. Four material objects were identified and marked as MO1 to MO4. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioners guilty of Section 395 I.P.C, and convicted them thereunder. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine Rs.5,000/- each with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the petitioners on repeated posting dates, Adv.Mr.K.Anand was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW6 point to the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence of dacoity. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the testimony of PW1 about the act of the petitioners, and the other three accused surrounding him while he was waiting at the bus stop with a bag containing cash amounting to Rs.50,000/-, and the subsequent assault upon him by one of the accused pointing a knife towards him, and another accused snatching away the bag from his hand, and tearing it off and taking out the cash contained in it. PW1 has stated that he could identify the presence of the petitioners herein as members of the above said five-member gang, who decamped with cash shortly after the commission of the aforesaid criminal act. It is pertinent to note that, all the five accused were taken into custody by PW6 on the same day from Palluruthy, and cash amounting to Rs.47,250/- were recovered from them. The clinching evidence of PW1 and PW6 in the above regard has been relied on by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court to conclude that the petitioners herein actively participated in the commission of dacoity, along with the other three accused. It is not possible for this Court to interfere in revision with the concurrent findings arrived by the Courts below, in the above regard, upon a meticulous analysis of the evidence on record. Having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners, the sentence awarded by the Courts below cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, I find that there is no merit in this revision petition.

7. In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed upholding the verdicts of the Courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section 395 I.