Revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked to reassess evidence unless the lower court orders suffer from patent illegality or manifest incorrectness in the appreciation of evidence, such as the proof of recovery under the Indian Evidence Act.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, IN CRL.A.NO.12/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.02.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.988/2014 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380 OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.988/2014, wherein the Trial Court considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 and also the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.16, comes to the conclusion that a theft was happened in the shop of P.W.1 and on the arrest of these two petitioners along with accused Nos.1 and 4, recovery was made at the instance of the accused i.e., pepper from P.W.8 and considering the evidence available on record, believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused and sentenced for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.12/2019 and the Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of P.W.8 and recovery witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 and also the Investigating Officer P.W.16, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error. It is also observed in paragraph No.20 that P.W.9 and P.W.10 though turned hostile, they have not given any evidence about P.W.16 visiting the shop of P.W.8. The mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.10 and the defence did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 and not disputed the evidence and their evidence supports the case of the prosecution and also the presence of P.W.16 in front of the shop of P.W.8 and P.W.8 also given the evidence that accused No.2 alone came and sold the pepper bags and the police came along with accused No.2 and seized the pepper bags. The Appellate Court on considering the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the prosecution evidence not inspires the confidence of the Court and the evidence available on record is contradictory to each other and there is a serious error in relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.6, 8, 9, 10 and both P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P.10 and there are legal infirmities and inspite of it, both the Courts have committed an error in believing the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 and it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel also submits that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court does not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and on that ground also, the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and both the orders suffer from its legality and correctness.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in his argument would submit that theft of pepper was taken place in the shop of P.W.1 on 05.07.2013. Immediately on the next day, complaint was lodged. P.W.1 had kept totally 25 bags of black pepper each weighing 60 kgs. and 77 kgs. of another bag of black pepper and other 4 bags of coffee and cash of Rs.2,85,000/- was kept in the drawer and locked the same