GANGADHARAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C 1060/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra. The case against the 3rd accused stands split-up. The revision petitioners faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that in between 12.15 p.m and 1.15 p.m on 23.12.1994, they, along with the 3rd accused, committed house breaking to the Jewellery of one Ammad at Perambra and committed theft of about 112.350 gms of gold ornaments, 38 gms of silver ornaments and also an amount of Rs. 36,000/- kept by him in a cupboard at the jewellery. The alleged theft occurred at the jewellery when the said Ammad went to the Mosque for prayer. When he returned, he found the door lock broken and the lock of the cupboard also broken. The ornaments and the amount kept by him in the cupboard were also seen missing. Without any delay, at 2.15 p.m, he made a complaint before the Police. On the said complaint, the Police registered the crime and proceeded for investigation. During investigation, these revision petitioners were arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perambra. At their instance and on the basis of the statements given by them, the Police recovered some of the ornaments and also a gold ingot from different jewelleries. After investigation the police submitted final report in Court against these revision petitioners and the third accused.

(2.) The accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO6 properties including a gold ingot were identified during trial. Though six items of properties were produced in Court, the complainant could identify only the MO1 to MO4 properties. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the two accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 380 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 454 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 461 IPC.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2001, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.Appeal No.540 of 2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-II, Kozhikode confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the two accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.