ORDER

The accused has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10th March 2015 passed in CC No.4322 of 2011 by the JMFC III Court, Mangaluru (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”), which is confirmed by the judgment dated 21st February, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, Smt.

Padma Priya has set the criminal law into motion by filing a complaint dated 10th September, 2010, stating that on 10th September, 2010 at about 7.00 pm, she had parked her Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-12/B-8080 within the precincts of T.M.A. Pai Hall to attend the marriage of her relative. It is further stated that she had kept jewels in her vanity bag beneath the seat of her vehicle and after attending the marriage, when she returned to the parking place at about 9.30 pm, she noticed that somebody had taken the vanity bag and stolen the gold ornaments totaling approximately Rs.3,75,000/- and cash of Rs.6,500/-. On the basis of the above report, the Mangaluru Police, Barke Circle, registered a case in Crime No.82 of 2010. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and conducted mahazar on 16th July 2011. When the police officials were on patrolling duty, the accused ran away after seeing them. On suspicion, they apprehended this accused and recorded voluntary statement and at his instance, police have seized three golden ornaments from City Gold Kids Jewelry at Kasargod. Thus, the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 379 Indian Penal Code.

4. After filing charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused and case was registered in CC No.4322 of 2011 and accused was enlarged on bail. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Same were read over and explained to accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PWs1 to 11 and marked ten documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. No material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied all the evidence appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence under Section 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, accused preferred appeal before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2015. The same came to be dismissed on 21st February, 2017. Being aggrieved by the judgments of both courts, the accused is preferred this Court in this revision petition.

6. Sri Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the accused/revision petitioner, submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal, unreasonable, harsh and are against the evidence on record. The prosecution has examined PWs3 and 4 signatories to Exhibit P5-Seizure Mahazar who have turned hostile. PWs6 to 10 have not supported the case of prosecution. The prosecution has failed to examine the case and seizure mahazar is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW5, who is the owner of jewelry shop, failed to identify the accused/Revision petitioner and PWs9 to 11 are official witnesses and their evidence have not been corroborated wit