The findings of lower courts based on evidence are not erroneous; the conviction for theft under Section 379 I.P.C is upheld.

O R D E R

The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.5,000/- each under Section 394 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.C No.338/2004. In the appeal, the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta altered the conviction to one under Section 379 r/w I.P.C, and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.5,000/- each. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdicts of the Appellate Court, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case is that while PW1 was walking through Konni-Poonkavu public road, the petitioners approached her in a motorbike with the first petitioner on the rider seat and the second petitioner on the pillion seat, and snatched her gold chain, after beating her upon her chest and shoulder. The incident is said to have taken place at 5:00 p.m on 20.09.2003.

4. Though PW1 lodged a complaint before the Konni Police in connection with the incident, a breakthrough in the investigation happened only after the arrest of the petitioners in another case, and their custodial interrogation by the C.I of Police, Mannar on 01.03.2004. On the basis of the information received from the petitioners during their custodial interrogation, the gold chain which belonged to PW1, was recovered from Pathiyoor Farmers’ Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., where it was pledged by a person by name Gopi, to whom the petitioners had handed over it. The aforesaid gold chain was thereafter identified by PW1. She also identified the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution through the other witnesses examined as PW2 to PW9 and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P9, disclosed the aforesaid criminal act of the petitioners. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the recovery of the above gold chain, which was identified and marked as MO1. However, the Appellate Court refused to accept the statement of PW1 about the act of the petitioners physically assaulting her, for the reason that she was not having such a case in Ext.P1 first information statement. Accordingly, the Appellate Court found that the actual offence committed by the petitioners was theft punishable under Section 379 I.P.C, and not robbery punishable under Section 394 I.P.C, as alleged by the prosecution. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Court. The evaluation of evidence by the Courts below cannot be termed as erroneous or improper. So also, the reasonings in the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, are based on sound principles of appreciation of evidence. That being so, there is absolutely no scope for any interference with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in the judgment rendered in Crl.A No.53/2007. Needless to say, the revision petition is devoid of merits.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The Trial Court shall take steps for the enforcement of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court.

G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr