IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1100 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2019 IN Crl.A NO.134 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2016 IN CC NO.237 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOOTHATUKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: 1 SUNIL, AGED 45 YEARS VELAPPAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHUANALKARA, KULIYANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 573 2 DEEPAK, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMON, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHUANALKARA, KULIYANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 573 BY ADV P.B.AJOY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 BY SMT.MAYA M.N-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR BEARING ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON 27.3.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 2 2025:KER:27405 M.B.SNEHALATHA, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th March 2025 O R D E R Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.237/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothattukulam and they are the appellants in Crl.A No.134/2017 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. In this revision, they assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that on 24.10.2014 at around 10.45 am while PW1 was proceeding through the Vadakara- Uppukandam Road, and when she reached near Shalom convent, accused 1 and 2 who came on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-35/C1049 snatched the gold chain worn by PW1 after gagging her mouth and nose. 3. After the investigation, the investigating officer laid final report against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 3 2025:KER:27405 4. The learned Magistrate who tried the case found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC and both the accused were convicted and sentenced thereunder. In appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.134/2017, the learned Sessions Judge though confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 394 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each with default custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. It was further directed that if the fine amount is realised, it shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Though by the impugned judgment in Crl.A No.134/2017, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction under Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC, in the operative portion of the impugned judgment, the section of offence has been shown as 379 r/w Section 34 IPC instead of Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against them in Crl.A No.134/2017, accused have preferred this revision contending that the trial court and the Sessions Court have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that there are no acceptable evidence to connect the Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 4 2025:KER:27405 accused with the crime alleged; that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to get an order of acquittal. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused snatched the gold chain of PW1 who was walking along the road after causing hurt to her and there are absolutely no reasons at all to interfere with the finding of conviction and order of sentence against the accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court. 8. PW1 is the defacto complainant who set the law in motion by laying Ext.P1 First Information Statement to the police. According to her, on 24.10.2014 at around 10.45 am, while she was walking along the road near to 'Shalom Convent' accused who came on a motorcycle approached her under the pretext of asking directions to the Vadakara church and while she was replying to the said query, accused snatched the gold chain worn by her after gagging her mouth and nose and thereafter accused fled away. PW1 has identified both the accused. She has categorically Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 5 2025:KER:27405 testified that it was A1 who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle who snatched her gold chain and A2 was the rider of the said motorcycle. 9. PW7 in his evidence has testified that he is conducting a jewellery named 'Moozhayil Jewellery' at Pala; that on 24.10.2014 both the accused had came to his jewellery for selling a gold chain; that PW7 purchased the gold chain from the accused and paid ₹20,000/- to the accused. His further version is that subsequently, on 25.5.2015, the police along with the accused had came to his shop and recovered MO1 gold ingot. According to him, by the time Police reached at his shop along with the accused for effecting recovery of gold, he had melted the gold chain purchased from the accused. 10. PW8 who is an employee under PW7 has also testified that the accused had sold the gold chain in the said jewellery; that subsequently the police brought the accused to the said jewellery for effecting recovery; that PW7 produced MO1 gold ingot to the Police. 11. PW8 is an attesting witness to Ext.P6 recovery mahazar prepared by the investigating officer for seizing MO1 from the Jewellery of PW7. Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 6 2025:KER:27405 12. PW4 in his evidence has testified that both the accused had worked under him as helpers in his building contract work. Further, he has testified that accused had taken his motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KL 35 C 1049 for their use on several occasions. 13. PW9 who was the then Circle Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha in his evidence testified that on 19.5.2015 he arrested A1 in connection with another crime, namely Crime No.1030/2015 of Muvattupuzha Police Station and during the interrogation, A1 made revelation regarding the snatching of a gold chain of an old lady near the convent at Vadakara and he also made revelation that the gold chain was sold in a jewellery at Pala. PW9 has further testified that upon enquiry, when he came to know that a crime had already been registered at Koothattukulam Police Station regarding the incident, he forwarded the records to the Koothattukulam Police Station. 14. PW10 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Koothattukulam Police Station. According to him pursuant to Ext.P6(a) disclosure statement given by A1, he took A1 to the jewellery wherein the accused sold the gold chain and seized MO1 ingot from there as per Ext.P6 seizure mahazar. 15. It is in evidence that pursuant to the disclosure Crl.R.P.No.1100 of 2019 7 2025:KER:27405 statement of the A1, MO1 gold ingot was recovered from the jewellery owned by PW7 at Pala. PW1 has identified both the accused. PW7 has also identified both the accused. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the versions of PW1 and PW7. The evidence on record would show that both the accused together snatched the gold chain of PW1, an old lady, who was walking along the public road near Shalom Convent after causing hurt to her. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 394 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the accused and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded as modified in appeal is not excessive or disproportionate to the offence committed. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 394 r/w Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab