ORDER :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court, wherein and whereunder both the learned Courts below found the present petitioners being A1and A2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued basically on two points, firstly, there are prosecution witnesses namely PW.7 and PW.8, mediators, who were allegedly present at the time of the arrest of the accused persons. PW.7 turned hostile, PW.8, though supported the prosecution case but it would be revealed that PW.8 is a stock witness of the police. He deposed in favour of the prosecution in other two cases. Thus, his evidence cannot be believed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the confessions made by the petitioners in presence of PW.8, the conviction of present petitioners is not maintainable. She submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in dealing with similar issue in Sd.SHabuddin vs. State of Telangana in Crl.A.No.3605 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 has held that the conviction under Section 411 IPC without any evidence except solitary confessionary statement is not maintainable.

3. Secondly, the petitioners themselves not required to explain their possession of huge amount of money but the prosecution has failed to bring the relatives of the accused persons to show justification of possession of the money by the accused persons. In this regard, she also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided in implication of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in the case under Section 411 IPC.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidentiary value of PW.8 has categorically observed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has also categorically observed that the evidence of PW.8 cannot be discarded though he has deposed in favour of the prosecution in other cases. He further submits that the conviction is based on evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is no merit.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

6. The prosecution case is that PW.1 was running a jewellery shop in the East Godavari District. On 09.07.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. while he was standing in a queue of railway station to purchase railway ticket, some unknown offenders committed theft of his black colour bag containing cash of Rs.20 lakhs. On the same day at about 9.00 p.m., he reported the matter to the police. During the course of investigation, I.O., arrested petitioners on 11.07.2007 at 6 p.m. at RTC Complex, Bhimavaram in presence of mediators, PW.7 and PW.8. He seized a part of stolen cash of Rs.19,94,000/- from their possession under mediators report. Charge was framed against the petitioners under Section 411 IPC. Prosecution examined ten witnesses, several documents were marked. Stolen property including cash and black colour bag was recorded and marked as material object Nos.1 to 3. After trial, petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they denied the allegations and incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences. After conclusion of trial and arguments, learned trial Court has found the petitioners guilty for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Hence, the impugned order of conviction is recorded. The learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has also confirmed the order of conviction. Hence, the instant revision case.

7. The evidentiary value of PW.8 was challenged by defence before the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. The defence argued before learned Courts below that evidence of PW.8 cannot be be