The court affirmed convictions for robbery, emphasizing evidentiary support from the victim and corroborating witnesses.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, and the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, in C.C.No.800/1997 & Crl.A.No.627/2001 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.03.1996, at about

2:30 a.m., the petitioner, along with other two accused, robbed the wrist watch, cash and suitcase of PW3, when he happened to travel in the autorickshaw in which the petitioner and the two other accused were travelling. According to PW3, he happened to travel in that autorickshaw, while walking from Calicut railway station to MCC Bank link road since the travellers in that autorickshaw offered a lift to him. It is further stated that PW3 was threatened on knife point and his wrist watch, cash and suitcase were robbed by the petitioner and the other accused, and thereafter he was pushed down from that autorickshaw. Thus, the petitioner, along with the other accused, are said to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 14 witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW14, and eight documents were brought on record as Exts P1 to P8. Four material objects were identified and marked as MO1 to MO4. The petitioner did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution has successfully established the offence alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the commission of offence under Section 392 IPC . Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Adhoc-II, Kozhikode, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, confirming the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed reliance upon the evidence tendered by PW3, the de facto complainant, about the incident which gave rise to this crime. The courts below also placed reliance upon the evidence let in by the prosecution about the recovery of MO1 watch. In the judgments rendered by the courts below, it has been observed that the evidence tendered by PW3 stood corroborated by the other evidence adduced by the prosecution, and that it convincingly established the commission of offence of robbery by the petitioner along with other accused. The concurrent verdicts of the courts below in the above regard is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. There is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the appreciation of evidence and the reasonings adopted in the impugned judgments of the courts below. Therefore, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 392 IPC by the courts below, is not liable to be unsettled in this revision proceedings.

6. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence involved, as well as the elapse of about three decades from the date of commission of the o