The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of concrete evidence to prove the elements of a criminal offense, including the knowledge that the property was stolen, and the unreliability of interested witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both applications arise out of common judgment and are interconnected, as such same are heard together and dispose of by this common order.

3. Both applications are directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2003, passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl. Judge-II CBI, AHD, Ranchi in criminal appeal No. 29 of 2002 and 30 of 2002, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2002, passed in G.R. No.731 of 1999 corresponding to T.R. No. 245 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of Indian Penal Code and they were convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sustained.

4. The prosecution case in brief, according to exhibit 6 is that on the basis of confessional statement of accused Md. Mahtab recorded in another Kotwali Hindpiri P.S. Case No.51 of 1999 dated 07.02.1999 under Section 457/ 380 IPC the informant along with other police personnel raided the shop of the accused-Md. Parwej Alam and Md. Khalid Anwar on 07.02.1999. Further, the case is that on search several articles were found. On demand by the police the petitioners failed to show any receipt of purchase. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted and the learned trial court after full-fledged trial convicted the petitioners under Section 414 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before the learned appellate court which has also been dismissed.

5. Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the above mentioned old articles which were seized were purchased from several persons. He further submits that there is no report of theft and as such Section 414 IPC for which the petitioners have been convicted will not be attracted; inasmuch as, the basic ingredients of Section 414 IPC is that the person should have in custody of stolen property and since there is no theft report it cannot be said that these are stolen property. In the entire deposition of prosecution witnesses there is no reference of any theft report save and except confessional statement of person who is accused in different cases.

Learned counsel further highlighted the fact that out of five witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were seizure list witnesses which has been declared hostile, as such the basic crux to prove the stolen articles has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the other witnesses i.e. P.W. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 all were police personnel and they were interested witnesses. More so, the seized articles are never been produced before the Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the conviction has been made mere on surmises and conjecture which cannot be done in criminal proceeding. Relying upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is fit to be set aside.

Further, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident is of the year 1999 and 22 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. Further, petitioner in Cr. Revision No.871 of 2003 remained in custody for about 82 days and petitioner No.1 & 2 in Cr. Revision No. 863 of 2003 remained in custody for 162 days and 120 days, respectively, and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail.

6. Learned APP though supports the impugned judgment however, could not brought on record any statement of the prosecution witness save and except the confessional statement of an accused of other case. There is no any theft report. Learned counsel however submits that since there is concurrent findings as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment looking to the l