A conviction under Section 379 of IPC can be confirmed while allowing for probation if circumstances merit leniency.

ORDER

The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’).

2. The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.

No. 555 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri. He stood trial before that court, along with another accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 379 , 201, and 411 r/w Section 34 of the IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that the first accused, along with a juvenile, had on 05.04.2006, between 5:00 pm and 10:00 pm, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-10-F-9184 belonging to PW1, from the road margin near Karuvarakundu Village Office. It is alleged that thereafter, the first accused and the juvenile destroyed evidence by removing the number plate and placing another fake number plate. It is further alleged that the second accused received the motor cycle from the first accused and the juvenile, fully knowing that it is a stolen property for dismantling it.

4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the first accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 379 of the IPC and convicted him thereunder. But it also found the first accused not guilty of committing an offence under Section 201 of the and acquitted him thereunder. It sentenced the first accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under of the .

5. The first accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The said court, by judgment dated 17.03.2016, dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the first accused. He submitted that there is no credible evidence to prove the identity of the motor cycle or to show that the parts of the motor cycle allegedly recovered belonged to PW1. He also submitted that if in any case, the conviction is upheld, considering the fact that the revision petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of the offence and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, leniency may be shown and he may be released on probation.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, supported the impugned judgments, contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

9. The evidence of PW1, the owner of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-10-F-9184, goes to show that his motor cycle was stolen on 05.04.2006, while he had parked it in front of Punnakkad Post Office. At 10:00 p.m. on that day, he found that his motor cycle was missing and made enquiries. Later, on 09.04.2006, he filed Ext.P1 complaint with the police. His evidence also reveals that on 10.04.2006, the police had asked him to come to a hawker shop near Melattur Railway Gate, and he had gone there. There, he found his motor cycle being dismantled. He identified his dismantled motor cycle by comparing the chassis number and engine number with the R.C. Book. He also identified the dismantled portions in court, which was marked as MO1 series and the accused in the dock.

10. The evidence of PW6, the Investigating Officer, goes to show that on receiving information, he had gone to the hawker shop at about 04:40 p.m. and had seen both the accused with the motor cycle. Thereafter, he called PW1, who came