The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, including voluntary disclosures leading to recovery, can suffice for conviction, emphasizing the importance of reliability even when witnesses turn hostile.

ORDER :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J.

1 By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 02.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No1, Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal No.90/2007 whereby the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Cr. Original Case No.76/2001 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 14.11.2007 as below:

2 The genesis of the case lies in a FIR No. 280/2000 lodged by complainant Amba Lal at Police Station Pratap Nagar. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2000, at around 8:00 PM, an unknown person stole his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-06-1M-6012 from the old bus stand near Shiv Bhojanalaya. The FIR was lodged on 27.06.2000. During the investigation, the co-accused, Damodar, while in police custody in another case, voluntarily gave information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 05.02.2001, confessing to the theft and stating that he had sold the stolen motorcycle to the present petitioner, Madan Lal. Acting on this information, the police apprehended Madan Lal, who also gave a statement that he had purchased the said motorcycle from Damodar for Rs. 2,000 and had given it to one Satyanarayan for repainting and to change the engine number. Pursuant to these disclosures, the motorcycle was recovered from the premises of Satyanarayan on 07.02.2001.

3 After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Damodar under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”) and against the petitioner under Section 411 . The said chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner before the trial court, where charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences as stated above. The petitioner denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4 During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 9 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the petitioner denied his participation in the incident, but no evidence was produced in defence.

5 On completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated 14.11.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above.

6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Court, however, the same was also rejected vide judgment dated 02.05.2008 and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

7 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the two courts below erred, both in law and on facts, in convicting the petitioner. He contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, with no direct or ocular testimony conclusively linking the petitioner to the alleged offence. In the absence of such direct proof, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish an unbroken and coherent chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the petitioner’s guilt a burden which, he argued, the prosecution has failed to discharge.

8 The learned counsel further argued that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle, which forms a pivotal element of the prosecution’s case, is wholly unreliable and cannot be accepted as credible evidence. He pointed out that the key recovery witnesses, namely Jitendra (PW-3), Satyanarayan (PW-4), and Goga Ram (PW-5), turned hostile during the course of trial. These witnesses, he emphasized, did not support the prosecution’s version regarding any valid recovery from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, thereby