The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to verifying the legality and correctness of the lower courts' findings; it does not extend to reappreciating evidence that was consistently held sufficient by both the trial and appellate courts, especially when recoveries and identifications are proven.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHALLAKERE IN CRL.A NO.34/2019 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS HEREIN/ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The records are secured and the offence invoked against the revision petitioners is under Section 392 of IPC and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The material objects are ordered to be released in favour of the victim.

3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution in brief is that Bheemappa is the resident of Challakere. That on 05.10.2008, when the complainant was alone in his house, on the reason that whether he requires any housemaid, accused Nos.1 to 4 made entry in his house at about 11.30 a.m. and having so entered, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the guise of enquiring the requirement of housemaid, accused Nos.3 and 4 held his arms and pushed him into the bedroom, they covered his face with towel and closing his mouth, accused No.4 took out the keys from his pocket and gave it to accused Nos.1 and 2, the latter accused by opening the cupboard, stolen amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and Rs.14,000/- petty cash, 4 gold bangles and 13 silver coins.

4. Based on this incident, a complaint was given and the same was registered. Thereafter, procedure was conducted by drawing mahazar and at the first instance, accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested and at their instance, Rs.33,000/- and Rs.15,100/- cash were recovered. Further, on 18.10.2008, accused Nos.1 and 4 were arrested and at their instance, Rs.1,07,200/- cash, 4 gold bangles and 13 silver coins were seized by the I.O. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were also subjected to Test Identification Parade and the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter, filed the charge-sheet. The accused persons being secured before the Trial Court did not plead guilty and claims trial.

5. Hence, prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.11 and material objects used for committing the crime were also marked as M.Os.1 to 7, including 4 gold bangles, 13 silver coils, towel and slipper and in 313 statement, the accused totally denied the incriminating evidence and not led any defence evidence.

6. The Trial Court, particularly considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.11 i.e., the voluntary statement as well as seizure at the instance of the accused comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case.

7. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2019 and considering the grounds which have been urged before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also taken note of evidence of particularly, P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.11 and so also I.O. and recovery was also proved by examining the recovery witnesses and considering the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

8. The present revision petition is filed before this Court against the concurrent finding of both the Courts. This Court secured the records and main grounds urged in the revision petition before this Court is that conviction re