The court upheld the conviction for theft, emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which applies when stolen goods are found in the accused's possession.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, Assam.

2] By way of this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) the petitioner is assailing the judgment & order dated 18.04.2012 passed in criminal appeal No. 46/2006 arising out of G.R. Case No. 2/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, Assam upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) with modification of the sentence passed under Section 380 IPC to the extent of two years instead of 3 years with fine of Rs. 300/- only and in default of payment of fine as imposed under Section 457/380 of IPC, the petitioner/accused shall undergo another Simple Imprisonment for 10 days.

3] The brief of the case is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 02.01.2006 alleging inter alia that the petitioner/accused entered into the house of the informant by breaking open the wall of the house and stole valuable articles therefrom. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered as Dergaon P.S. Case No. 01/2006 under Section 457/380 of IPC and arising out of the said P.S. Case, a G.R. Case being No. 2/2006 was registered and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and thereafter, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Golaghat (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) framed charges against the petitioner/accused and conducted the trial. After conclusion of the trial and hearing, the trial Court by judgment & order dated 9.10.2006 was pleased to hold the petitioner/accused guilty under Section 457/380 of IPC and accordingly, convicted him and sentenced him thereof. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment & order of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Golaghat (hereinafter referred to as “appellate Court”), wherein the appellate Court by judgment & order dated 18.04.2012, though uphold the judgment & conviction of the trial Court, however, as regards the sentence imposed under Section 380 of IPC, modified the same to that of 2 years instead of 3 years. Situated thus, the present revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid judgment & order of the appellate Court.

4] Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the petitioner/accused has produced the stolen articles in question to the Investigating Officer is not narrated by the Investigating Officer in his deposition before the trial Court and hence, the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act”) ought not have been drawn against the petitioner for which the appellate Court has committed gross error.

5] Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, Assam submits that the judgment & order of the appellate Court being based on appreciation and re- appreciation of the evidence and on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution the same suffers from no legal infirmities whatsoever. He accordingly, submits that the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6] I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for contending parties, and also perused the material available on record.

7] It appears that the prosecution has adduced evidence of 6(six) prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer as (PW-6), whereas the case of the petitioner/accused is of complete denial in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and further the petitioner/accused did not adduce any defence witnesses. It appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) supported by the two seizure witnesses i.e. PW- 4 and PW-5 that the accused had produced the stolen articles from his house