ORDER:

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated

11.11.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.17 of 2007 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Vijayawada, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. in the judgment dated 22.12.2006 in C.C.No.1141 of 2003 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On 12.03.2003 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner herein and five others entered into a cloth shop and asked PW1 to show sarees under the guise of purchase and committed theft of silk dresses, silk sarees and cotton sarees worth Rs.8,000/- and decamped with the booty. On such theft, a case in Crime No.61 of 2003 has been registered. On reliable information, on 26.03.2003, PW4 along with his staff and mediator proceeded to NTR Statue Centre, Patamata and found six persons selling clothes. On seeing the police party, the accused ran away, PW4 along with his staff stopped them and seized cash of Rs.4,300/- four silk dresses materials, four sarees A1 confessed that an amount of Rs.4,300/- was obtained by selling the stolen property. After drafting the mediator report, the accused therein were remanded to judicial custody.

3. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The trial Court convicted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 380 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner, who is A1 in the said C.C., preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment.

6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/A1.

7. Heard Sri M.S.P.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-

State.

8. The prosecution examined PW1/Y.Baby Padmini. In her evidence, she stated that on 12.03.2003 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., A1 to A6 came to her shop and asked to show sarees and other dress materials and they were stayed about one hour and made her to produce all sarees and other materials. When she was engaged in showing the saree materials, all the accused committed theft of six dresses, two silk sarees, four cotton sarees and also two jacket pieces and left the shop without notice. Thereafter, she realized that they committed theft and informed the same to her son-in- law and neighbours. Subsequently, she went to the police station and lodged a complaint. Nothing found in the cross-

examination to disbelieve the same.

9. The prosecution also examined PW-2/Ch.Nageswara Rao, in whose presence MO.1- 8 Sarees, MO.2- Cash of Rs.4,300/- were seized and Ex.P-4 mediator report was prepared did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he went to police station on his personal work and signed in Ex.P-4 mediator report in the police station. None were arrested nor seized any material in his presence. This witness did not support the prosecution case.

10. Another witness examined by the prosecution is one A. Bhaskar Rao/PW3 who is said to be mediator, stated that on 26.03.2003 at 12.00 p.m., he was asked to come to Patamata Centre Panta Kaluva as someone selling sarees. He along with police reached NTR Statue Centre, where A1 to A6 were present and they were apprehended by the police. The police seized sarees from their possession and also seized cash of Rs.4,000/- towards sale proceeds of the stolen sarees and obtained his signatures on the mediator repo