PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

Crl.R.P. No.877 of 2011

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2026

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 26.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 401/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam, arising out of the judgment dated 04.08.2009 in C.C. No. 280/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor, whereby the revision petitioner herein was found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.02.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the accused committed theft of a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5X/7412, belonging to CW1, which was parked in the compound of Gayathri Building at Ettumanoor. It is further alleged that the accused removed the original registration plate and affixed a false registration plate bearing a Tamil Nadu registration number. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the trial, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. From the side of the defence, no evidence whatsoever was produced.

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kottayam, who heard the appeal, confirmed the judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused, and the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence adduced in the case and have hastily convicted the accused. According to the learned counsel, there is no proper identification of either the accused or the motorcycle allegedly stolen by the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is also on the higher side. On these premises, it is contended that the impugned judgment warrants interference in the interest of justice.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court, after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, have entered a finding of guilt against the accused based on convincing evidence and materials placed on record by the prosecution. It is further submitted that there is no apparent illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned judgment and, hence, interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not warranted.

9. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the rival contentions raised, it is pertinent to note that it is well s