The judgment establishes the importance of consistent and cogent evidence in proving the essential factors of theft under Section 379 IPC, emphasizing the significance of circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 09.03.2016 in Crl.A.No.40 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 29.01.2015 in C.C.No.642 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.)

1. The judgment dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.40 of 2015 upholding and confirming the judgment dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore in CC.No.642 of 2012, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and thereby sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, has been questioned in this Criminal Revision, at the instance of the petitioner / accused.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 13.09.2012 at about 08.00 pm, P.W.1/complainant along with her son and P.W.2/wife of the complainant’s brother had boarded the Train going to Nagercoil at Coimbatore Railway Station; they were allotted with seats bearing Nos.35, 38 and 40 in S4 coach of Covai-Nagercoil Express Train No.16610; as soon as they sat down, P.W.2 went to toilet and her son was lying on his berth and P.W.1 took the water bottle from her handbag and kept it in the seat, but it fell down; when she bent down to take the same, a person had taken her handbag and ran away from the train; on seeing the missing of her handbag, P.W.1 asked the other passengers, who replied that they did not know about the same; she got down from the coach and saw a person wearing blue and red colour ‘T’ shirt running in the platform carrying her handbag; immediately, she shouted ‘thief’, ‘thief’; on hearing the same, the railway police tried to catch him, but the accused escaped; and thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 got down from the train and went to Coimbatore Railway police station, where P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint, with regard to theft of her handbag (MO1), which contains a leap phone (MO2), SBI Bank ATM card (MO3) and cash of Rs.10,200/- (MO4). P.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police, received the said complaint and registered it as Ex.P4 FIR No.1764/2012 and informed the same to all the police officers, who were on beat duty. On the same day night, P.W.3/Coimbatore Railway Police, who was on his way to home at Tiruppur, was travelling in Kerala Express which was coming from Tiruvananthapuram to New Delhi; P.W.4/Tiruppur Railway Police was also travelling along with him; at that time, a passenger informed to P.W.4 that one person was having ladies handbag and counting money and he was doing the same in a suspicious manner; on such information, P.W.3 and P.W.4 went and enquired the said person, who was having ladies handbag and money in his hand; the said person initially gave an evasive answer, but later accepted his guilt; P.W.3 and P.W.4 along with accused, got down from the train at Tiruppur Station; after knowing the complaint of missing a handbag, they brought the said person to the Coimbatore Railway Station, where, P.W.1 identified the said person as accused, who ran away stealing her handbag. P.W.1 conducted enquiry with the accused, who initially gave contradictory statements and later, admitted his guilt of theft of handbag and gave his confession statement; based on Ex.P2 admissible portion of confession statement of the accused, P.W.6 arrested the accused and recovered MO1 to MO4 material objects under Ex.P3 seizure mahazar in the presence of the witnesses P.W.5/Selvaraj and one Muhammed Ali and thereafter, remanded the accused to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 379 IPC, which culminated in CC No.642 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.

3. When the trial Court questioned the petitioner in respect of the incriminating materials found agains