Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires specific charge and solid proof of seizure; reliance solely on presumption is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Balangir in Criminal Appeal No.18/8 of 2009, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No.709(A) of 2005/T.R. No.994 of 2006 has been confirmed.

2. According to the F.I.R. the prosecution story is that the informant in this case is a resident of village of Madhiapali. He bought two quintals' worth of 10 mm iron rods and one half quintal of 2 mm iron rods for the construction of his house, and he stored the articles in the premises of his house. Someone stole the aforementioned iron rods and wooden Balis that were stored on the informant's premises on December 23/24.12.2005, during the night. The pilfered items were worth INR 6,000.

3. The informant reported the incident to the Sadar Police Station's O.I.C. on December 24, 2005, after learning about it the O.I.C. filed P.S. Case No. 260 of 2005 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and began the investigation into the matter. After the investigation was over, the I.O. filed the charge sheet after determining that there was prima facie evidence against the three accused—Harishankar Sagar, Mukesh Barik, and Mukandar Barik under Sections 379 and 34 of the . As a result, the learned Trial Court had charged them in accordance with the aforementioned Sections and put them to trial.

4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 2 witnesses and 8 documents were exhibited. The plea of defence was that of complete denial.

5. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found him guilty for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year.

6. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir in G.R. Case No.709(A) of 2005/T.R. Case No.994 of 2006 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.18/8 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Balangir, by the petitioner.

7. Having failed in the appeal the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Revision Petition.

8. Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

9. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record.

10. The petitioner along with Mukesh Barik and Harishankar Sagar were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-379/34 IPC . They were subjected to trial for the said charges.

11. The prosecution out of 14 charge-sheeted witnesses chose to examine only two witnesses namely P.W.1, the informant of the case and P.W.2, the I.O. of the case. On the strength of the evidence of these two witnesses, the prosecution attempted to prove its case.

12. The Trial Court disbelieved the ocular testimony of P.W.1, the informant and recorded acquittal in favour of all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections-379/34 IPC . However, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 411 , because it was found that the stolen properties were seized from the pe