The quality of evidence is crucial in determining the validity of a conviction, and minor discrepancies in witness testimony may not undermine the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. The respective petitioners have filed separate these two revision petitions praying this Court to set aside the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.53/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K., confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed in C.C.No.1338/2003 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) JMFC, Sullia, D.K. for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, petitioner herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the lurking of building trespass and committed theft of watches worth Rs.70,000/-in the shop belonging to PW1 situated at Kallugundi of Sampaje village of Sullia taluk. Based on the complaint, the case was registered and recovery was made during the course of investigation and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Accused persons were secured before the Trial Court and recorded the plea of accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against accused persons, examined witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P29 and also marked MO1 to MO10. The Trial Court recorded the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted accused persons for the charges leveled against them and hence, an appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.53/2007 and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petitions are filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.RP No.875/2013 vehemently contend that according to the prosecution, incident was taken place on 14.05.2003 and when the complainant came to know about the committing of lurking of building and theft, the case was registered and these petitioners were arrested on 21.06.2003 and the alleged recovery was made on 22.06.2003. The counsel would vehemently contend that regarding arrest is concerned, PW5 gives different version and though he says that the arrest was made near Sharma Watch Works but in the cross-examination, he admits that when they were proceeding to go to Puttur, accused persons were apprehended. The counsel also would submit that the witnesses have not examined regarding seizure and mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel also would submit that receiver was also not examined before the Trial Court and when the recovery witnesses have not examined and watch stand and weapon were thrown into the well according to the prosecution, there are no materials placed before the Trial Court. However, both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution and prayed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P.No.935/2013 vehemently contend that there is no corroborative evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He would also submit that only bills were produced for having purchase the stolen articles and except the evidence of PW1 and police witnesses, no other material are found and the counsel also reiterates that the receiver has not been examined before the Trial Court and even recovery is also not proved. Hence, prayed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that accused No.2 involved in 9 other cases and details were also given in page No.35 and the Trial Court taking into note of the said fact made an observation that accused No.2 is a habitual offender and h