Courts can affirm convictions where prosecution evidence is mutually corroborative, and sentences can be refused to run concurrently based on the nature of offenses.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.202/2013 of Sessions Court, Manjeri by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused in C.C.No.118/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna.

2. The prosecution case is that on 22.9.2008 at about 3.30 am, accused committed lurking house trespass into the house bearing No.III/205 of Pulamanthole Panchayat belonging to PW4 and committed theft of 52 grams of gold ornaments after break opening the lock of almirah and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections

457, 380 and 461 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ').

3. Pursuant to Ext.P3 first information statement laid by PW4, the crime was registered. After completing the investigation, PW7 filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 , 380 and 461 of Indian Penal Code .

4. Accused abjured guilt and faced trial.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2.

6. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence and maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 457 , 380 and 461 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 457 ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 380 and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 461 . The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.202/2013 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.

8. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective; that the recovery alleged to have effected pursuant to the confession statement of accused is inadmissible in evidence and the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting the accused without taking into account the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment.

10. Now let us see whether the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.

11. The law was set in motion by PW4 by laying Ext.P3 first information statement by alleging that in the wee hours of 22.9.2008, a theft took place in his house bearing door No.III/205 of Pulamanthole Panchayat and the thief stolen away 52 grams of gold ornaments kept in the almirah after break opening its lock.

12. According to PW4, two gold bangles and one pair of gold anklets kept in the almirah were stolen by the thief. He has further testified that the thief entered into the house by removing the roof tiles of the house.

13. According to PW5, on 22.9.2008 at 3.30 am, while she was sleeping, she felt someone groping on her legs and when she suddenly woke up, she could see a person standing near to her and when she cried aloud, the thief took to his heels. On verification, she could realise that the gold anklets and two gold bangles kept by her in the almirah