O R D E R

Revision Petitioner-Ramesha, who was accused No.2 in CC No.23589 of 2011, has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29th June, 2013 passed by the III Additional CMM, Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 05th December, 2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2013 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10th November, 2010, at about 7.00 am the first informant locked his house bearing No.249/A, 43rd Main, 2nd Phase, Ideal Homes, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore-560 098 and went to Srisailam for attending marriage function. When he returned to his house on 14th November, 2010 at about 6.30 am, he found that the front door was broke-open and after verification he found that gold ornaments worth Rs.75,000/- and cash of Rs.4,000/- were missing from the house. On 24th March, 2011, the Investigating Officer arrested accused 1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statement and on that basis, seized articles shown in PF No.34, 36 and 37 of 2011 in the presence of panchas under different seizure mahazar. Thus, accused have committed alleged offence punishable under Section 457 and

380 of Indian Penal Code.

4. In response to summons, both accused appeared before the trial Court. The trial Court has framed charges for the alleged commission of offence and same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and got marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf.

6. On hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days; further accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 454 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused No.2 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2013 before the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 05th December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by both the Courts, accused No.2-Ramesh has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

8. Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused without any evidence. There is no legal evidence to base conviction. The trial Court has also erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The trial Court has failed to comply with provisions of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the trial Court has received Exhibits P9 to P11 the full voluntary statement of the accused as evidence, which is not permissible under law. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that accused No.2 has comm