Revisional jurisdiction narrowly limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Related witness testimony reliable if credible. No need for independent witnesses in disclosure/recovery u/s 27. Unexplained recent possession presumes guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Present revisions have arisen out of the common trial and judgment; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.

2. The present revisions are directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, HP (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 7.5.2012 and order of sentence dated 11.5.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, HP (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that Rahil Khan (PW1) was running a shop in the name and style of Rahil Communications at Ranital, Nahan. He closed his shop on 16.2.2007 at 10.30 PM. He returned to the shop on 17.2.2007 at about 6.45 AM and found that the lock of the shutter was broken and the shutter was open. He went inside the shop and found that the articles were scattered. He checked the articles and found that accessories of mobile, mobile batteries, mobile covers, mobile coupons worth Rs.12,000/- and currency notes of Rs.14,000/- were missing. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ex.PW4/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Ranjeet Singh (PW7) visited the spot and recorded the statement of Rahil Khan (Ex.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered. HC Ranjeet Singh investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/C) and took the photographs (Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2) with the help of an official camera. He found a hammer (Ex.P2), a broken rod (Ex.P1), and a broken lock (Ex.P3). He seized them vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). HC Ranjeet Singh (PW7) received information that a person was selling recharge coupons near Delhi Gate. He asked the informant to visit Delhi Gate. The police reached Delhi Gate and found that one person was selling recharge coupons at a discount. The police apprehended him. He revealed his name as Akshay alias Ankush. The police searched him and found four coupons (Ex. P4 to Ex. P7), a Top-up recharge (Ex. P8 and Ex.P9), two coupons of smart recharge (Ex.P10 and Ex.P11) and one Nokia battery (Ex.P12) in sealed condition. Rahil Khan identified them as the stolen articles. They were put in a parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘A’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). Akshay disclosed the involvement of Prince, who was also arrested. Akshay made a disclosure statement that he had concealed recharge coupons, Audio CDs, Charger, Batteries, Computer Speaker and Amplifier, etc. in a shop which could be got recovered by him. Statement (Ex.PW1/D) was reduced to writing. Prince made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/E) that he had concealed Audio CDs, Batteries, Charger, and Recharge Coupon in his home, which could be got recovered by him. Prince led the police to his home and got r