The validity of confessions and identification of stolen property constitutes adequate basis for conviction under IPC Sections 457 and 380.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.

405 of 2009 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of the IPC . After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the said offence and he was convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the '). The sentences shall run concurrently. Set off is also allowed for the period in detention. The accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under and 380 of and he was acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved though the revision petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2011 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc-III), North Parvur, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence as such without any interference. The legality, propriety and correctness of the concurrent findings of conviction is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

During November 2008, the 1st accused broke open the residence of CW1 bearing No. XI/161 and committed theft of gold chain worth Rs.20,000/- which CW1 was wearing and also a mobile phone and caused the stolen articles to be sold through the 2nd accused and appropriated the sale proceeds and that in doing the acts as aforesaid the accused were acting in furtherance of their common intention.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the courts below miserably failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in its correct perspective. The court below went wrong in relying on the confession statement said to have been recorded by the police for basing the conviction. The alleged recovery is said to have been effected under Section 27 of the Indian evidence Act is vitiated by procedure regularly. In short, the sum and substance of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge alleged against the accused. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor advanced arguments to justify the impugned judgment under challenge. According to him the prosecution has successfully proved the charge alleged against the accused beyond doubt.

4. Coming to the evidence on record, PW1 deposed that one day in the month of November 2008, at about 3 a.m. the accused came inside the room by opening the bars of the window. The gold chain on her neck was broken. When her bangle was pressed she woke up. Then she found that the gold chain of coir fashion weighing 2 sovereigns was missing. The accused was found wearing a jetty. He had stolen the mobile phone which was placed near the T.V. She added that she did not complain as she was afraid of the entire events. But after 8 months the police came with the accused to her house in connection with the investigation of the above theft. When she went to the police station the police showed her the stolen golden chain and she identified the same as her gold chain. She obtained the said chain from the court on Ext.P1 kaichit. The gold chain taken on kaichit was returned and she identified the same in the court as MO1. She also stated in the court that she was able to identify the accused and she identified the accused (No.1) in the court. PW4 was examined as the person who purchased the mobile phone from the 1st accused for Rs.2000/-. He admitted that he purchased the mobile phone from A2 and after few days, police came to his house and he produced the gold chain and gave the mobile phone to the police.

5. After analysing the evidence of PW1 the courts below reposed its confidence in the evidence