Possession of stolen property can establish guilt under IPC, even without direct evidence; conviction can be altered to a lesser charge if appropriate.

ORDER:

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 04.11.2007 in Crl.A.No.119 of 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, confirming the judgment dated 29.06.2006 in C.C.No.1115 of 2005 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, finding the Revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Ismal, learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that there was no direct evidence or there was no eye witness to the occurrence of the offence. The learned Appellate Court wrongly placed reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and believed that the Revisionist had committed offence punishable under Section 380 of ‘the I.P.C’; the learned Trial Court ought to have seen that Ex.P1 is silent with regard to MOs.No.1 and 2; the Revisionist being a woman aged about 30 years old at the time of occurrence and a homemaker, lenience should have been shown in sentencing the revisionist. Alternately, it is submitted that the Revisionist had undergone more than two months imprisonment; nearly 20 years have passed by; she had suffered a lot of mental agony, she is doing cooli works; now she is aged about 50 years; she has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and urged to impose sentence to which she had already undergone.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 380 of ‘the IPC.,’ there were no material irregularities committed by the learned Trial Court or Appellate Court and no miscarriage of justice caused to the Revisionist and urged to dismiss the revision.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.119 of 2006 dated 04.12.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court; Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. This Court in S. Venkat Reddy v. State of A.P, [2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 357 (AP)]. held at para No.3 as under:

“3. It is settled law that when a conviction is recorded by the Trial Judge and upheld by the first Appellate Court, re-appreciation of the evidence cannot be done unless there is miscarriage of justice.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, [(2004) 7 SCC 659] at para No.21, 22 and 23 held as under:

“21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav, [(2004) 7 SCC 665]. Theat was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enablin