K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore affirming conviction of the petitioner for an offence under S. 380 of the Indian Penal Code (' I. P. C. ' for short) and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief was that in the early morning of 25-7-1973, P. W. 1 (informant) found that a pair of bullocks belonging to him had been stolen from his cowshed. He went in search of them and found one head of bullock near his village. He went in further search of the other bullock along with P. Ws. 2 and 3. In course of search he learnt at village Ranital that the villagers of Mundamara had detained a person on the suspicion that he had stolen a head of bullock. He went to village Mundamara and found the missing bullock belonging to him. He was also told by P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 belonging to village Mundamara that the petitioner was taking away the bullock and so he was detained. P. W. 1 thereafter brought the petitioner, as well as, the bullock to Bhadrak Police Station and lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). In due course charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed an offence under S. 380, I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner was that the bullock was being taken by some other person. The villagers of Mundamara could not catch hold of that person, but instead, detained him as he happened to pass through the village immediately after the escape of the real thief.

( 4 ) THE trial court believed the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner urged two points, namely, (1) the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner had committed theft of the bullock or was found in possession thereof soon after its theft and (2) the Investigating Officer having not been examined by the prosecution, the petitioner was prejudiced for his defence.

( 6 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1, the owner of the bullock, considered along with the evidence of his villagers (PWs. 2 and 3) shows that the missing bullock was found at village Mundamara. Along with the missing bullock the petitioner was detained by P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6. The evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, villagers of Mundamara shows that while it was heavily raining in the morning hours, the petitioner and another person were found moving along with the village street with the bullock. This aroused their suspicion and so they detained the bullock, as well as, the petitioner while the other person escaped. In the presence of the witnesses the petitioner confessed that he had committed theft of the bullock. The bullock was identified as belonging to P. W. 1. The evidence of these witnesses is such that it is impossible to disbelieve the same. Particularly, the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 who were independent, unknown to P. W. 1, as well as, the petitioner is of such nature that on no account the same can be discarded. Therefore, the learned courts below arrived at the correct conclusion on the basis of evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 to the effect that the petitioner was found in possession of the bullock which had earlier been stolen from the lawful possession of P. W. 1. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below based on sound appreciation of evidence cannot be challenged in revision. Therefore, I accept the same and hold that the prosecution clearly established by cogent, credible and reliable evidence that the petitioner had committed theft of the bullock belonging to P. W. 1.

( 7 ) THE Investigating officer was not examined as a prosecution witness. The orders dated 5-2-79, 14-2-79, 21-2-79, 1-3-79 and 22-3-79 of the trial Court record show that attempt was made for securing the presence of the Investigating Officer. But as he was ultimately found absent on 22-3-79, the prosecution evidence was clo