Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.

ORDER :

The Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2010 passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam confirming the conviction against Revisionist for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) while reducing the simple imprisonment from six months to one month against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class (Prohibition and Excise), Srikakulam in C.C.No.343 of 2008 whereunder the Revisionist was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’ and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Deepak Misra, learned Counsel for the Revisionist argued that there was no direct evidence about the identity of the Revisionist as thief; there was no recovery of goods from the Revisionist; evidence of P.W.5 was inconsistent and P.W.3 did not support the version of the prosecution in total. Therefore, the Revisionist is deserved to be acquitted. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 28 years and was a coolie; nearly 17 years have passed by; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 45 years; he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and requested to impose sentence to which he had already undergone.

4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that as the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Revisionist and the learned Appellate Court rightly confirmed it. There are no material irregularities, the judgment is correct, legal and proper and urged to dismiss the revision.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. This Court has perused the record thoroughly. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2010 dated 01.02.2011, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, District, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?

6. The prosecution examined the six witnesses and got marked six exhibits and five material objects. It was the case of the prosecution that on 3/4.3.2008 between 6:00 P.M., and 6:30 A.M., the Revisionist had gained entry into Sri Srinivasa Prardhana Mandiram, Etcherla Village by breaking open the lock of iron grills and Garbhagudi (sanctum sanctorum) and committed theft of one Silver Jandhyam, one Silver Vaddanam, one pair of Silver Murugulu weighing in total 26 tolas which were decorated to the idol of lord Venkateswara Swamy and decamped with booty worth Rs.5,000/-. The theft was noticed on 04.03.2008 during the wee hours by Patnala Nageswara Rao (P.W.1) and informed the same to Gurupalli Jaggunaidu (P.W.2) and Patnala Suribabu. Later a Police report was given under Ex.P.W.1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police (P.W.4) had registered Ex.P1 as a case in Crime No. 46 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on 04.03.2008 at about 09:30 A.M., and took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators and prepared scene observation report and seized broken locks and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence.

7. In the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.6) arrested the Revisionist with the assistance of Sri B.Gopalarao, Sub-Inspector of Police and other staff and recover