JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is moved against the concurrent judgments of the conviction and sentences passed against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008 dated 30.06.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C.NO.711 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each.

2. The revisionists were the Accused Nos.1 & 2 and the respondents herein was the Sub-Inspector of Police represented by Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Motor vehicle of P.W.1/(M.O.1) was stolen on 08.07.2007 at about 4.00 P.M. from the parking area of the RTC Bus stand of Guntur District. It was recovered from the possession of the accused on 11.07.2007 at about 6:00 A.M by P.W.3 near Mani Hotel Center, Guntur. The accused failed to offer satisfactory reason for the possession of the vehicle with them. On the other hand, the accused are not claiming the ownership of the vehicle and have not explained possession of the vehicle.

4. The accused pleaded innocence of the offence. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3as witnesses, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were the documents marked apart from the stolen motor bike (M.O.1). The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.

5. After hearing both counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each.

6. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 2filed Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008before the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. After hearing both the learned counsels and on appreciation of the material on record, the Learned Sessions Judge found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal code and confirmed the Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against them, the accused Nos.1 and 2preferred this present revision petition on the grounds that the learned Judges failed to appreciate the evidence in their perspective, that there is no direct witness to the occurrence, that the accused are not habitual offenders and no ingredients are made out to attract the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgments.

8. Heard Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the vehicle of P.W.1 was stolen by unknown persons. The prosecution alleges that the said vehicle was found in the possession of the accused. The accused are two members. Nothing is alleged against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in specific. P.W.2 is a stock mediator. No independent witness is examined to prove the seizure of the vehicle from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2.Except P.W.3 - the investigating officer, no other witness is available to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, in absence of such evidence, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

10. Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution was established the case against the accused, nobody can plan a motor bike for falsely impleading the