The appellate court can modify sentences while affirming convictions based on the overall evidence and credibility of witness testimonies.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.229 of 2008 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case under Section 392 IPC to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. In the appeal filed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Thalassery, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of conviction and the modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. Since there was consecutive non-representation on the part of the revision petitioner, Adv. Mr. Junaid V.S was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner.

3. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The prosecution case is that on 24.03.2008 at about 3 pm, while PW1 was walking through the road from Attadappa to Koyyode, the petitioner herein came in a motorbike as pillion rider to the first accused who drove that vehicle, and snatched away two gold chains belonging to PW1 after threatening her by brandishing a sword.

5. The petitioner alone faced the trial since the 1st accused passed away during the course of trial. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15, and the marking of 8 documents as Exts.P1 to P8, and also after considering the material objects identified as MO1 to MO3, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the commission of offence under Section 392 IPC and convicted him. Accordingly, he was sentenced to the punishment as stated above. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reappraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate about the commission of the offence by the petitioner. However, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. In the present revision petition, the petitioner would contend that the courts below went wrong in convicting and sentencing him for the commission of offence under . It is further contended that there was no acceptable legal evidence to find the guilt of the petitioner.

6. Among the witnesses examined before the Trial Court, PW1 testified about the act of the petitioner and the other accused snatching away her gold ornaments. However, she did not state before the Trial Court that the aforesaid criminal act was done after threatening her by brandishing a sword as contended by the prosecution. PW2, the brother-in-law of PW1, also supported the evidence tendered by PW1. According to PW2, he came to the spot hearing the cries of PW1 and saw the petitioner and the other accused fleeing from that place. Shortly after the incident, the petitioner was caught and the stolen items were recovered. PW1 and PW2 stated before the Trial Court about the identification of the petitioner as the offender, and also the stolen items robbed from PW1.

7. It is true that PW4 and PW5, who were cited as attestors to the seizure mahazar, did not support the prosecution case. However, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and the other witnesses, which rendered credence to the prosecution case.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the offence of robbery is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, since PW1 did not state before the Trial Court that the accused came with a sword and threatened her in order to facilitate the theft of gold chains worn by her. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court held that the loss