IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of stolen property is sufficient for conviction under IPC Section 411, provided the accused knew it was stolen.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 30.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 27.9.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, for the offences under section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.626 of 2012.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :

(i). On 29.03.2009 at about 06.00 a.m., while P.W.1 alone in the house at Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, two unknown persons entered into her house by tying clothes to their faces, caught hold her, beat on her head with an iron rod, thereby, caused bleeding injury, snatched away her gold chain weighing about three sovereigns worth of Rs.15,000/- and decamped with booty.

(ii). Basing on Ex.P.6 hospital intimation, P.W.5 recorded the Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.39 of 2009 of C.C.S. circle, Rajahmundry and P.W.7-Inspector of Police investigated into. Then, P.W.7 arrested accused Nos.1 to 3, recovered the property and conducted property identification parade.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, trial was conducted, found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months each. Further, accused No.2 also found guilty of the offence under Section 394 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.314 of 2010, before the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 30.12.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1.

7. Heard Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused No.1 was not identified by P.W.1; that basing on the alleged confession only, the petitioner was implicated, which is hit by Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act; that no property said to have been recovered from the petitioner; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1, who is victim/injured coupled with P.W.3 mediator categorically proved the offence against the petitioner; that basing on the confession of petitioner only, M.O.1 property was recovered from his possession in the presence of mediator/P.W.3; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offence; that there are no grou