This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioner/accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and

C.J.M. at Tumkur in C.C. No.1530/2011 dated 14.11.2013,

which is confirmed by VI Additional District and Sessions

Judge at Tumkur in Crl.A.No.130/2013 dated 15.09.2015.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the Trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as

under:

The complainant Rajsingh has lodged a complaint on

29.09.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. It is the allegation that the

accused along with C.W.2-Pushpalatha came to the

complainant's jewellery shop and asked him to show the

gold chains. The accused has selected one Anjali cutting

and godhi design mixed golden chain weighing about 30

- 3 -

grams and enquired the rate. The complainant has

intimated him that the value of the golden chain is

Rs.55,000/-. After selecting the chain the accused gave

one bundle covered in a newspaper stating that the said

bundle consists of Rs.51,000/- and remaining Rs.4,000/-

was kept in the Honda Activa. The accused took the

golden chain along with him and went outside under the

guise of getting the remaining Rs.4,000/- from his vehicle

and thereafter, he fled from the spot. When C.W.2-

Pushpalatha opened the bundle given by accused, she

found that the bundle was consisting of cut paper pieces

and thereafter, complainant and C.W.2 searched for the

accused and they did not find him. Hence, a complaint was

lodged against the accused.

4.

During the course of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused and at

the instance of the accused, seized the stolen golden chain

from the shop of C.W.6-Tejaram by drawing mahazar and

- 4 -

thereafter, he submitted the charge sheet for the offence

under Section 420 of I.P.C.

5.

After submission of the charge sheet as there

are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the

cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned

Magistrate. Initially, the accused was remanded to the

judicial custody and subsequently, he was enlarged on

bail. The prosecution papers were also furnished to the

defence counsel as contemplated under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.

After hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the

accused, charge was framed against the accused under

Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same is read over and

explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

7.

To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution

has examined in all 8 witnesses and has also got marked 5

documents at Exs.P.1 to P.5 and 2 material objects as

- 5 -

MOs-1 and 2. After conclusion of evidence of the

prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the

incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case

of the prosecution. The case of accused is total denial.

8.

After

hearing

the

arguments

and

after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the

learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced him

to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a

fine of Rs.1,000/- along with a default clause.

9.

This judgment of conviction and order of

sentence was challenged by the accused before the VI

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur in

Crl.A.No.130/2013. The learned Sessions Judge after re-

appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary

evidence,

dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned

- 6 -

Magistrate. Against these concurrent findings, this revision

is filed.

10. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court

Government Pleader. Perused the records.

11. The

learned

counsel

f