P.D. Rajan, J.

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.A.389 of 2001 of III Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Revision petitioner was charge sheeted in C.C.657 of 1999 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam for offences punishable under Section 457, 380 IPC. The charge against him is that on 4.5.1999 at 2 am, he trespassed into the house of Suneesh, PW1 and thereafter committed theft of a tape recorder, Calculator and Rs.1000/- and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 IPC. Kunnamkulam police registered a crime and after completing investigation, S.I laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam.

2. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ext.P1 to P4. Tape recorder and Calculator were marked as material objects 1 and 2. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He examined DW1 in the trial court. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 380 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 457 IPC. Against that accused preferred Crl.A.389 of 2001 before III Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur where the accused was acquitted under Section 357 IPC and the conviction was confirmed under Section 380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

3. Heard both sides. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that whether he was in possession of the stolen article or not ? The occurrence was stated by PW1 in the trial court. His evidence shows that on 14.5.1999, he went to Velankanni with his wife and children after locking the house and returned on 16.5.1999. At that time, the front lock was dismandled and door was opened by somebody. During inspection, he realised that the tape recorder and calculator (MO1 and MO2) and Rs.1000/- were stolen by somebody. Immediately, he informed the matter to Kunnamangalam police and lodged Ext.P1 statement. Subsequently, MO1 and MO2 were recovered from the accused. The wife of PW1 was examined as PW2 who supported the evidence of PW1, her husband. She also identified MO1 and MO2. PW6 attested Ext.P3 seizure mahazar and supported that Sub Inspector arrested the accused and recovered MO1 and MO2 on 16.5.1999 from his house. PW5 registered the oral evidence of PW1 and registered the case.

4. The stolen articles MO1 and MO2 were recovered by the Sub Inspector. PW8 deposed that he arrested the revision petitioner and recovered MO1 and MO2 from him. No serious legal infirmities were detected in the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The police constable PW3 deposed that while he was conducting patrol duty with the S.I on 16.5.1999, near Bright Hotel, Thrissur, the accused was found carrying tape recorder and calculator. He interrogated the accused, arrested him and recovered MO1 and MO2 from the accused. PW4 is also another witness who attested Ext.P2 mahazar. PW7, Assistant S.I conducted investigation in this case. According to Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act it is presumed that a person who is in possession of a stolen good soon after the theft is either a thief or has received stolen goods knowing them to be stolen unless he could account for his possession. Even though DW1 was examined by the revision petitioner in the trial court, no evidence has been adduced by the revision petitioner to rebut the presumption.

5. In Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 2501 it was held as follows:-

According to illustration (a) of Section 114 a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. It would depe