Insufficient evidence necessitates reversal of conviction under Section 381 IPC, highlighting procedural irregularities.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.C No.91/2003 and Crl.A No.218/2005 respectively convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 381 I.P.C, are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that in between 4:00 a.m and 6:00 a.m on 11.01.2003, the petitioner committed theft of MO1 to MO8 from a hotel at Pullad where he had been working as an employee of PW2 to whom the above hotel belonged. The value of the stolen items is stated to be Rs.3,500/-. In connection with the above incident, the S.I of Police, Koyipuram filed the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner.

3. Before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked five documents as Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 to MO8 were identified as material objects. From the part of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1 in addition to his own testimony as DW2. Four documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D4 through DW1 and DW2. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, that the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 381 I.P.C. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict of the learned Magistrate before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to link the petitioner with the offence alleged against him. There was no occasion for anybody to witness the theft or to see the petitioner/accused carrying the stolen items. The entire prosecution case rests upon the search and seizure conducted by PW1, a Head Constable associated with Palliickathode Police Station at a house at the place called Neduvathoor which was far away from the place of occurrence. It is pertinent to note that, the hotel from where MO1 to MO8 were stolen, was situated within the limits of Koyippuram Police Station in Pathanamthitta District. PW1, the Head Constable of Pallickathode Police Station in Kottayam District, is said to have received information about the theft of MO1 to MO8 from the hotel at Pullad within the limits of Koyippuram Police Station in Pathanamthitta District, and proceeded to a house at Neduvathoor for conducting search there. Though it is stated that the aforesaid house at Neduvathoor was the dwelling house of the petitioner herein, the evidence tendered by the Secretary of the Vazhoor Grama Panchayat where the aforesaid house is situated, as DW1, would show that the structure where PW1 conducted the search was a hut used as a cycle repairing shed, belonging to a person by name Thankappan of Puthenpurayil. That apart, the evidence tendered by the petitioner as DW2, and the documents marked as Exts.D1 to D4, would reveal that the accused has been residing in the house by name Kuzhiyanidichirayil, Vazhappally P.O, Changanacherry in Kottayam District. There is absolutely nothing on record brought out by the prosecution to connect the petitioner/accused with the hut at Neduvathoor, from where MO1 to MO8 are said to have been recovered. The only evidence relied on by the prosecution to fasten the accused with the criminal liability for the recovery of the stolen items from the hut at Neduvathoor, is the statement of PW1 that the petitioner/accused and his mother were there at that hut when the search and seizure were effected. The prosecution has no case that the aforesaid recove