Conviction requires reliable evidence; the absence of such evidence led to the acquittal of the 1st accused while the 2nd accused's conviction was upheld with a reduced sentence.

ORDER

[Crl.Revision Petition No.353 of 2017]

This Revision Petition has been preferred by respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.Appeal No.188/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha against reversal of the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha in C.C.20/2012 and convicting the 1st petitioner under Sections 457 , 461, 201 and 380 of IPC and the 2nd petitioner under Section 201 and 414 of .

2. PW1 was the Manager of a Foreign Liquor Shop No.1/6006 of Beverages Corporation situated at Moolamattam. In the morning at 9.30 a.m. on 9.1.2012 when PW1 came to open the foreign liquor shop, it was found broke open and committed theft of cash worth Rs.7,86,500/- kept inside the shop in a safe. He reported the matter to the police and a crime was registered in that respect. Subsequently, investigation revealed that the shop was broke open and theft was committed by the 1st accused and the 2nd accused concealed the stolen money. There is also the allegation that the accused persons destroyed the evidence.

3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 22 and documentary evidence Exts.P1 to P19. MOs1 to 5 were also identified. No evidence was adduced by the accused persons. After appreciating the available evidence, the trial court acquitted both the accused persons. However, in appeal, the Sessions Judge reversed the finding and found both the accused persons guilty and convicted them as stated above. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court, the accused persons preferred this revision raising various grounds.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :

(i) Whether the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the 1st accused has committed the offences under Section 457 , 461, 380 and 201 of IPC is sustainable ?

(ii) Whether the finding of the Sessions Judge that the 2nd accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 201 and 414 of IPC is liable to be sustained ?

(iii) Whether the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court convicting accused persons 1 and 2 calls for any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the Revision Petition ?

5. Heard Adv.Sri.Gikku Jacob on behalf of the revision petitioners and Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

6. The points :- In order to prove that, in the foreign liquor shop No.1/6006, Moolamattam, belonging to Beverages Corporation, house breaking and theft was committed, the prosecution has examined PW1, the Manager of the shop. He would swear that on 8.1.2012, the shop was closed at 10.00 p.m and in the morning on 9.1.2012 at 9.30 am when he came to open the shop, it was found that the front door of the shop was broke open and the door was found in an open condition. On examination it was seen that a sum of Rs.7,86,500/- being the collection on the previous two dates, namely on 7.1.2012 and 8.1.2012, kept in a safe was robbed after breaking open the Safe. A challan prepared by him for remitting the collection in the treasury was also kept along with the cash. He had given Ext.P1 FI statement in that respect to the police and he identified Ext.P2 as the challan prepared and signed by him along with the cash. He also deposed that he was present at the time of recovery of a part of the currency from the bank of a river near AKG colony, in the presence of the 2nd accused.

7. The prosecution examined PWs2 to 11 to prove that after the commission of the offence, the 1st accused had financial transactions with those persons. PW2 would swear that on 10.1.2012 the 1st accused advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to him. Thereafter, when he came to know about the theft, he had produced the above Rs.1,00,000/- to the police. PW3 would swear that in November, 2011, the 1st accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him and that the said loan was repaid by the 1st accused in January 2012. However, he does not remember the exact date on which the