JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The present petitioner was tried as accused by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Challakere, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'the Trial Court') in C.C.No.130/2011, for the offences punishable under Ss. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC') and was convicted by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 8/11/2012 and was sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.87/2012, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, by its judgment dtd. 20/4/2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 17/8/2010, during night time, the accused has committed lurking house trespass by entering into Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple at Narayanapura in Challakere Taluk, within the limits of the complainant-Police Station by breaking open the lock put to the door of the said Temple and committed theft of the idol of Sri Anjaneyaswamy, worth Rs.1, 53, 195.00, a silver prabhavali of 1 1/2 ft. height, five silver Umbrellas, one silver Naagabharana, two silver Dalu, one silver crown and sold the same to CW-11 - Ganesh for a sum of Rs.35, 000.00, who converted the same into silver ingot and thereby has committed the offences punishable under Ss. 457 and 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 guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10, got marked six documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6 and produced two Material Objects, i.e. a key and a silver Ingot as MO-1 and MO-2 respectively. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused. The impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in its annexure shows 'Ex.P-3' as 'Jumped'. The Trial Court record also does not bear any document marked as 'Ex.P-3'. However, a perusal of the deposition of PW-9 would go to show that, in his evidence, the alleged recovery panchanama is shown to have been marked as Ex.P-3 and the signatures of the panchas at Exs.P-3(a) and P-3(b). However, the said recovery panchanama is also shown to have been identified by PW-6 as Ex.P-4. Though it appears to be an over-writing of the exhibit number in Ex.P-4, still, it may have to be inferred that both the witnesses, i.e. PW-6 and PW-9 are referring to the very same exhibit, which, according to the Trial Court judgment, is the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P-4.

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

5. The Trial Court and the 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 dtd. 11/7/2022, appointed learned counsel - Sri. S. Javeed, 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. 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 counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petiti