The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to errors in evidence and witness credibility, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The revision petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1875/2018 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalabuargi are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2019, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section s 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year each and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years each and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.51/2019 by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi vide judgment dated 02.01.2021.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 25.09.2017, accused Nos.1 to 3 have criminally trespassed into the house of PW.1 by breaking open the lock and committed theft of 130 grams of gold ornaments, 15 rings and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. On the basis of the first information lodged by PW.1, the FIR came to be registered. During investigation, on suspicion, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended. It is stated that, the gold ornaments belonging to PW.1 were recovered at their instance and final report came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but they have not led any evidence in support of their defence.

4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.51/2019. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 have preferred this revision petition.

5. Heard Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and the judgment of the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court are liable to be set aside?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

7. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused have break opened the lock, illegally trespassed into the house of PW.1 and committed theft of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. Some of the gold ornaments and cash were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, it is sated that they have committed the above stated offence.

8. To prove the contention of the prosecution, informant-PW.1 is examined before the Court. He stated about breaking open the lock and stealing of the gold ornaments and cash. Witness states that, accused was shown to him by the police in the police station. The gold ornaments found in Exs.P2 and P3 belongs to him a