The failure to examine the finger print expert and mark the report created doubt over the prosecution's case, entitling the petitioner to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Mahila Judge (Fast Track) at Namakkal in C.A.No.37 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017 passed confirmed the conviction order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, dated 19.06.2017 in C.C.No.82 of 2012 convicting the petitioner and acquit him from all the charges.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence in C.A.No.37 of 2017, dated 07.11.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy in C.C.No.82 of 2012 dated 19.06.2017, finding the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC and convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to a pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and further sentencing the petitioner to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Section 380 of IPC and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.12.2011, during night hours, the petitioner/accused made a lurking trespass with an intention to commit an offence of theft in the house of the defacto complainant situated at Musalnaicken palayam, by removing the roof tiles of the house and committed theft of Rs.13,000/-, two sets of silver anklet, four silver coins, one waist chord and four gold ear studs weighing about 2 1/2 sovereigns, five rings weighing about 3 1/2 sovereigns, worth about Rs.75,000/- and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

3. The respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 and after completing the investigation, had filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy. After taking the case on file, the copies were furnished to the petitioner under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and while questioning, the petitioner had denied the charges for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sought to be tried. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and M.O.1 series were marked. Neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been marked on the side of the defence. The trial Court after questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing both sides, had found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above.

4. As against the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2017 before the Court of Sessions (Fast Tract Mahila Court), Namakkal, and by the judgment dated 07.11.2017, the said criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. The evidence let in by the prosecution is that P.W.1 Kuttiannan, defacto complainant had gone to Chennai on 27.12.2011, after locking his house and he had returned on 01.01.2012 at about 12.00 noon. When he entered into his house, he had seen the five tiles of the top roof were removed from his house and he found that cash and gold articles were missing from the bureau and almirah of his house and thereby, he had preferred a complaint before the Nallur Police Station and the said complaint was marked as Ex.P.1. After lapse of fifteen days, he received an information that the stolen properties, which were marked as M.O.1 series, were recovered and thereafter, P.W.1 had gone to the Police Station and identified the properties. P.W.2 is