SUKU ALIAS SUKUMARAN Vs. CHELLAPPAN ARIAS KIDUMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in Cr1. R.P: 134 of 1988 is the first accused in C.C. 150 of 1986 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur, while petitioner in Cr1. R.P. 233 of 1988 is the second accused therein. Petitioners challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on them. In Cr1. R.C. 102 of 1988, the aforesaid petitioners were directed to show cause, why the sentence imposed on them should not be enhanced.

(2.) Courts below found petitioners guilty of offences under sections 457, 461 and 392 read with section 34 IPC, on the charge that they in furtherance of their common intention, committed lurking house trespass and robbery on the night of 29.12.1984. P.W. 2-wife of P.W. 1, was sleeping in her room with her sister-in-law. She woke up and switched on the light and saw the first accused standing near her bed, with a dagger pointed at her. She would say that, the second accused also was present, armed with a dagger. Al asked P. W. 2 to switch off the light, and then she was taken to another room by both the accused. They removed her gold chain and ear studs, putting her in fear of death. They took the keys, opened on almirah and removed articles kept therein. Pursuant to information given by first accused, a gold ingot was recovered. At an identification parade conducted by P.W. 6 Magistrate, P.W. 2 identified both the accused. On this evidence, Courts below found the charge.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the recovery would implicate only the first accused, and that there was no evidence against the second accused. Both accused were identified by P.W. 2. Evidence of identification is unimpeachable. In these circumstances, conviction was only proper. In revision, this court will not sit as a third court on facts and re-appreciate evidence. Evidence will be considered, to ascertain the propriety, legality and correctness of the findings. I have been taken through the evidence in extensor and I am satisfied that the findings made on good evidence are not vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety to warrant interference in revision. Conviction is confirmed. Trial Magistrate directed the sentences imposed in the case to run consecutively. But, he directed that the sentence will run concurrently, with the sentence in C.C. 217 of 1986.