The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the court emphasized the importance of effectively discharging initial doubt and the onus of proof.

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC, Arsikere, in C.C. 426/08 and affirmation of the same in Crl. A. 104/08 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, Petitioners herein were the accused in the said case registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. Petitioners have been directed to undergo SI for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- vide judgment dated 5.8.2008.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:

(a) On 27.4.2007, it is alleged, they had lurked into the house of the first informant at Arsikere and committed theft of silver articles worth Rs. 23,000/- after breaking open the padlock of the trunk. On receipt of the first information, the SHO registered a case and sent it to the court. After visiting the spot, spot mahazar was drawn and the case was handed over to PSI for further investigation.

(b) The accused were arrested on 22.10.2007 by the City Market police relating to a case registered by them and during the course of investigation, the voluntary statements of the accused were recorded by the police and it was revealed to the City Market police that they had committed theft at Arsikere and sold the silver articles to Mr. Suresh of Mandya. On the basis of the voluntary statements, the stolen articles were recovered at the instance of the accused, from Suresh. Since the theft was done at Arsikere by lurking into the house of PW - 1, charge sheet was filed by Arsikere Rural police station.

(c) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses and 13 documents. Four material objects have been got marked. Accused have been examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but have not led evidence on their behalf. Ultimately they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by framing the following points for consideration as found in paragraph 6 of the judgment:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.4.07 during night hours these accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft, entered in to the house of complainant by break open door lock and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s. 457 r/w. 34 IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place these accused committed theft of silver articles worth Rs. 23,000/- from the house of complainant by break open and padlock of the trunk and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 380 r/w. 34 IPC?

3. What Order?

3. The first informant has been examined as PW - 1. It is in his house that the theft of silver articles worth Rs. 23,000/- took place. He was not in the house since he had been to Bengaluru to look after his mother who was admitted to Shobha Nursing Home. He received a telephonic message to the effect that his house had been burgled. He came back to Arsikere and found the silver articles missing. Therefore he chose to lodge first information. Police came to the spot and spot mahazar was done. On 4.11.2007, Bengaluru police had called him to City Market police station and showed the silver articles. He identified the same as belonging to him. These articles were given to the interim custody of the complainant.

4. PW 2-Ramachandra and PW 3-Chandrashekar are witnesses to the spot mahazar drawn at Arsikere. PW - 8, PW - 9, PW - 10 and PW - 14 are all police officers. They have spoken about the arrest of the accused at Bengaluru. PW - 14 received the information that some persons had assembled in a car near Mahaveer Drug Houser of HMS Galli, O.T. Pete Cross to commit robbery. Then he went to the spot along with PWs - 9 to 12 and arrested this accused. According to him, the car which was in the front left the place immediately.

5. PW - 7 is a police constable who submitted the FIR to the cou