SURESH @ DRACULA SURESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in S.C. No. 444/2010 of the Court of Session Muvattupuzha, tried and disposed of by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha. He and his wife faced prosecution on a charge under Section 457, 380 and 413 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') on the allegation that at about 1:30 a.m. on 31/07/2009 they committed house breaking to the house of one Reji at Ikkaranad, and committed theft of articles like mobile phones, 4= sovereigns of gold ornaments and CDs. The revision petitioner was arrested by the police on 01/08/2009 at 5:30 p.m. Crime in this case was registered by the police on the First Information Statement given by the said Reji. The stolen articles were recovered by the Sub Inspector of police on the basis of the statement given by the revision petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Some of the properties were later recovered by the Circle Inspector of police during investigation.

(2.) The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the trial court under Sections 457, 380 and 413 IPC. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P16 documents. The stolen properties were identified during trial as MO1 to MO8 series. In defence, the accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. On an appreciation of evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 457, 380 IPC. As regards Section 413 IPC he was found not guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl. Appeal No. 151/2012. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now he is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) The revision petitioner preferred this revision through the Superintendent of the central jail where he is undergoing sentence. On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below. The only illegality alleged by the revision petitioner in the memorandum of revision is that scientific investigation was not made by the Investigating Officer, or that necessary finger prints and foot prints were not collected and compared during investigation. Comparison of finger prints or foot prints will only provide a circumstance, and on the basis of such evidence alone a conviction cannot be made. If the prosecution has evidence otherwise to prove the alleged offence, it is quite immaterial that scientific investigation was not made. That apart, no illegality or irregularity is seen alleged in the memorandum of revision.