The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of examining the Investigating Officer in certain cases, and the need for consistent and reliable witness testimonies.

ORDER

1. The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.2617/2006, in the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Trial Court'), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04-03-2008 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 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.51/2008, in the Court of the Fast Track Court-III at Tumkur, (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.2617/2006. It is challenging the judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Trial Court as well the learned Sessions Judge's Court, the accused/petitioner herein has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 06-06-2006, when PW-1 (CW-1) had kept his golden chain in his house at Sadashivanagara, within the limits of the complainant Police Station and had gone to take bath, he noticed that the said chain was found missing when he finished his bath and saw to it. He searched for the said chain in his house and thereafter, kept quiet for some time without proceeding further in the matter. After some time, through Newspaper, he came to know that the complainant Police had recovered some quantity of stolen articles including a golden chain, as such, he went to the Police Station on the date 17-08-2006. On finding his stolen chain in the Police Station and identifying the same, he lodged a complaint with the Police. According to the him (complainant), after registering the complaint, the Police visited the spot and drew a scene of offence panchanama. After completing the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 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 five (5) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-4(b) and produced onr Material Object at MO-1. 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. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused) failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 16-06-2022, appointed learned counsel - Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused, to represent him in this case.

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

8. Heard the learned counsels 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 Sessions Judge's Court's records.

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

10. 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 offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code