IMPORTANT POINT
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.

ORDER :

V.Srinivas, J.

The petitioner/accused No.1 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.104, 105 and 106 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.19, 18 and 20 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which confirm the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.380, 379 and 381 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.

The petitioner/accused No.2 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.1586, 1587 and 1589 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which were confirmed by the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.379, 380 and 381 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.

The petitioner/accused No.3 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.1590, 655, 1588 and 644 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.21, 24, 22 and 25 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which confirm the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.386, 380, 387 and 381 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.

2. The shorn of necessary facts are that :

i) Between 25.12.2003 and 29.12.2003, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of Vegesna Venkata Ravi Varma situated at Y.Garvu by break opening the entrance door lock and committed theft of cash of Rs.10,000/-, gold jewels viz., gold chain with corals, gold small ear studs-8 pairs and gold chain besides silver articles viz., plate-1, glasses-2, bowls-2 and pooja saman which worth about Rs.20,000/- and absconded with the stolen property.

ii) Then the police registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.239 of 2003 and investigated into the case. During investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 18.06.2004 in the presence of mediators and they confessed that A1, A2, A3 and A4 committed the offence and basing on their confessional statements, recovered the stolen property. A4 surrendered before the Court on 12.07.2004.

iii) Then the Sub-Inspector of Police conducted identification parade by mediators wherein the said Vegesna Venkata Ravi Varma (complainant) and his wife identified the stolen property. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.

3. After filing of charge sheet, the same were taken on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of three (03) years each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. A1 to A3 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months each for the offence punishable under Section 457 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred appeals, before the Court of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur. The judgments of trial Court were modified stating that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 411 I.P.C. A1 to A3 are sentenced to simple imprisonment for two (02) years, each and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months each and accordingly, the conviction and sentence and thereby dismissed vide judgments dated 10.01.2011.

5. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision cases were preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.