ORDER :

The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.898/2010, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Challakere, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 09-01-2012 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.31/2012, in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.898/2010. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, the accused/revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 03-06-2010, during night, the accused by removing the tiles of the roof of the house of CW-1 - Nagaraj, situated at I Cross, near Veerabhadra Lodge on Bellary Road, Challakere, entered into the said house and committed theft of silver articles and cash kept in the Almirah and that on the date 13-06-2010 at 11:00 a.m., CW-7 to CW-11, conducted a raid and apprehended the accused. The Investigating Officer recovered several of the stolen articles from the accused, including the one which were stolen in the instant case, as such, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 75 of the IPC.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all seven (7) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6 and produced Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-3. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The respondent - State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and learned Sessions Judge's Court's records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is :

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge's Court that, the accused has committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in his argument submitted that, he would not deny or dispute the alleged incident of theft in the house of PW-1, however, his only contention is that, the alleged recovery at the instance of the accused, is not proved. He further submitted that, mere tallying of a 'Chance Fingerprint' cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused.

In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in Law Finder Doc Id#1385623 and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mallappa Basappa Ih