ORDER

1. Present revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 27.2.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.11.2018 has been dismissed and conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 379 of IPC and award of rigorous of imprisonment for 8 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been affirmed.

2. Record retrieved and with the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

3. Brief facts of prosecution is that a complaint was registered by the complainant Gyan Prakash Bhargawa (PW1) with the allegation that on 26.7.2017 around 9 am, he along with his son Vidyansh went to Alap Academy at Guna over a motorcycle Hero Honda CD Deluxe bearing registration No. MP-08-MH-4428 and when he left the motorcycle outside the premises of academy to drop his son and went inside, meanwhile somebody committed theft and took the motorcycle away. When he came out from the academy he found the said fact and therefore, registered a complaint on which FIR has been lodged and matter has been taken into investigation. During investigation, petitioner was arrested and statement of witnesses taken. Motorcycle was seized and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed.

4. Petitioner/revisionist abjured his guilt and sought trial. Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and defence produce none.

5. Statement under section 313 of CrPC of accused was taken.

6. After considering the documentary and oral evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded jail sentence for 8 months RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred the appeal before the Sessions Court but suffered. Sessions Court confirmed the judgment of conviction. Therefore, this revision has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for hearing at motion stage because of the fact and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent had no objection. Therefore, matter heard finally.

9. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that trial Court as well as appellate Court erred in convicting the appellant and confirming the same whereas prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Source of implication is memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act and seizure memo creates doubt. No seizure witness supported the story of prosecution. Only on the basis of testimony of complainant Gyan Prakash Bhargawa (PW1) and testimony of Investigating Officer- Kanti Prasad Diwakar (PW6) and he has been convicted. He is resident of District Ashoknagar and incident is of District Guna and he has been falsely implicated. All other witnesses did not support the story of prosecution. Out of 8 months, he already suffered more than 6 months in confinement. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of impugned judgment.

10. Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and appellate Court rightly confirmed the same. He supported both the judgments and prayed for dismissal of revision.

11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. This is the case of theft and petitioner is convicted for the offence under section 379 of IPC. As per the complaint, the complainant Gyan Prakash Bhargawa (PW1) never saw the person who committed theft of motorcycle because as per his statement when he came out of the academy, he found his motorcycle missing. Therefore, no eyewitness exists in the case to depose before the Court about the role of petitioner regarding lifting the motorcycle from the spot. Only source of implication as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, is memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Although, memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act is in respect of information received from the accused and the extent of its evid