JAWAHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition in revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October, 1994 passed by Shri S. K. Ray, Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, Port Blair in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1994 whereby the Order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S. K. Haldar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), at Port Blair in G.R. Case No. 1072 of 1991 was upheld. The petitioner, having been found guilty of the offence under section 454 IPC, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more.

(2.) The prosecution case, put in a short compass, was that on 4.9.1991 at about 11 AM the informant, namely, S. K. Krishnan, while passing by the side of his rented accommodation, noticed that some portion of its door had been slightly opened. Thereupon, he could noticed the presence of the petitioner inside the said room. The petitioner was thereafter caught hold at the spot by the informant with the help of some other witnesses, and, thereupon, the petitioner disclosed his name as Jawahar. The petitioner was thereafter brought to the police station and was handed over to the police.

(3.) Since the guilt of the petitioner under section 454 IPC has been established by a concurrent finding of the fact by the trial court as well as the Appellate court, I find practically no scope for interference therein. Shri Hemraj Bahadur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged before me that even assuming the prosecution story to be true, no offence under section 454 IPC was made out by the prosecution on the facts as alleged. I, however, find myself unable to accept the contention inasmuch as, the learned appellate court while expressing agreement with the finding of the trial court has correctly observed that the petitioner had stealthily entered into the watch-repairing-shop-in-question with intent to commit theft. The room, where the petitioner was found and caught hold, was in joint occupation of the informant S. K. Krishnan and one Veeraswamy and the same was used as a watch repairing shop. The petitioner has been held guilt of having entered into the shop while managing to expand one of the jhaps of the door. The room was then closed by putting lock and key therein. The lock was of-course not break-opened but the petitioner is said to have entered into it through loose portion of the jhap after taking all precaution to conceal his entry therein. That being as such, I find no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the trial court and the appellate court while convicting the petitioner under section 454 IPC.