A court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting irregularities in prior decisions; it does not extend to re-evaluating evidence presented in lower courts.

O R D E R

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2021 This revision petition has been directed against the judgment in Crl.A No.48/1998 dated 14.9.2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track Court I, Pathanamthitta, (for short 'the appellate court') confirming the judgment in C.C.No.532/1995 dated 5.3.1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny (for short 'the trial court').

2. The 1st accused is the revision petitioner. He along with the

2nd accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 457 and

380 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 11.8.1995 during the night at 4.00 am. the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 and committed theft of one double cot, one single cot, one table and five wooden planks, worth Rs.7,500/- and thereby committed the offence.

4. The crime was registered on the basis of the first information statement given by PW1, the defacto complainant. On completion of the investigation, final report was was filed at the trial court. Process was issued and the accused entered appearance. Charge under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty.

5. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MO1 to MO4 series were identified. After trial, the trial court found the 1st accused/appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused No.2 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. The accused No.1 preferred the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence at the appellate court. The appellate court after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal as per the judgment dated 14.9.2004. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below, the 1st accused preferred this revision petition.

6. I have heard Sri.Amal Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 and also the recovery of stolen articles consequent to the confession statement made by the accused to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the owner of the stolen properties. PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW3 is the person who purchased one of the stolen articles (single cot) from the 1st accused soon after the theft. PW6 is the neighbour of the 1st accused who purchased another stolen article (double cot) from him on 12.8.1995. Ext.P2 is the recovery mahazar of single cot recovered from PW3. It has been identified as MO2. Ext.P5 is the recovery mahazar of double cot recovered from PW6. The double cot has been identified as MO1. The rest of the stolen articles were recovered consequent to the confession statement given by the accused while in police custody, immediately after his arrest. Those stolen articles were identified as MO3 series. Ext.P3 is the recovery mahazar and Ext.P3(a) is the relevant portion of the confession statement. PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police who recovered MOs 3 and 4, gave evidence about the recovery. The above evidence on record would clearly establish that the stolen articles belonged to PW1 and the accused committed the theft of the same. Both the courts concurrently found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st accused/appellant committed theft of MO1 to 4 series articles belonging to PW1.

8. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C was to confer power upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshn