High Courts should avoid interfering with concurrent findings of lower courts in the absence of evidentiary perversity.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1st accused in CC No.2263 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kochi. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offences under Sections 454 , 461 and 380 IPC . The allegation against the petitioner is that on 31.01.2011 at about 12.45 pm, he criminally trespassed into the residential house of PW1 by breaking open the window at the backside of the house and took away the gold ornaments weighing 25 ½ sovereigns and also cash amounting to Rs.25000/- placed in an almirah. In the Final Report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palluruthy, another person was also arraigned as the 2nd accused with a charge that he received stolen property from the petitioner herein.

2. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and marked 33 documents as Exts.P1 to P33. 10 material objects were identified as MO1 to MO10. From the part of the accused, 4 defence witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW4 and 3 documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner herein guilty of commission of offences under Sections 454 , 461 and 380 IPC . The learned Magistrate had sentenced the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.5000/- for each of the aforesaid three offences. The 2nd accused was found not guilty of the offences charged against him and he was acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam, who considered the above appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence awarded to Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.5000/- under Section 454 , and Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and fine Rs.3000/- under Section 380 and Simple Imprisonment for three months and fine Rs.1000/- under Section 461 . Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

4. It is true that there were no eye witnesses to the commission of the offences involved in this case. However, it can be seen from the records that the petitioner herein was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer (PW11) on the basis of the statement of PW1, that he was the only person who was found there in the work shop adjacent to the house of PW1 at the relevant date when the Crime took place. Upon interrogation, the petitioner herein is stated to have disclosed about the disposal of the stolen items. Based on the information so received from the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, PW11 effected recovery of the stolen items as well as the implements used by the petitioner for breaking open the window on the rear side of the house of PW1. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the discovery of the above facts relating to the act of the petitioner disposing of the stolen items as well as the utensils used for the commission of the offence. It is not possible for this Court in exercise of its revisional powers to unsettle the concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard. On going through the impugned judgments of the courts below, it is seen that the courts below arrived at the findings on the basis of sound judicial reasoning. That being so, there is absolutely no scope for this Court to invoke powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C to interfere with th