The conviction under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was upheld due to substantial evidence supporting the accusations against the accused.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.304/2012 of Sessions Court, Manjeri, by which it confirmed the conviction and judgment passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perinthalmanna in C.C.No.27/2009.

2. The prosecution case is that on 28.5.2008 at about 2 am, accused committed house breaking by night into the house bearing Door No.3/68 belonging to PW2 and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 15.25 sovereigns from there. Pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement laid by PW1, the crime was registered. After completion of the investigation, PW10 the Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC .

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Before the trial court prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 and MO1 and MO2. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

4. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay ₹2,000/- each for the offences under Section 457 and 380 . In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. In appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.304/2012, the conviction and sentence against the accused was confirmed.

5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition, contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and failed to take note of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

7. Let us see whether the judgment of conviction and order sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.

8. The law was set in motion by PW1 by laying Ext.P1 first information statement. PW1 and PW2 are brothers and they are residing in the neighbouring houses. According to PW1, the incident happened in the wee hours of 28.5.2008; that on that day at 2 am, he heard a loud cry from the house of his brother, namely PW2. On enquiry, he could learn that a theft took place in the house of PW2 and gold ornaments were stolen away by the thief. PW1 lodged Ext.P1 first information statement to the police.

9. PW2 testified that on 28.5.2008, after the funeral rites of his deceased brother, while the family members were asleep, a theft took place in his house and ornaments weighing 15¼ sovereigns were lost. He has further testified that the thief entered into the house by breaking open the door of the house. He has further testified that pursuant to the complaint laid by his brother namely PW1, the police came to the spot and inspected the scene of occurrence. His further version is that subsequently, in December 2008, police had brought the accused to his house.

10. PW3 is another inmate of the house. According to her, while the inmates of the house were sleeping, a theft took place and the gold ornaments worn by her child, gold anklet worn by PW4 Khadeeja and the gold ornaments worn by the child of Khadeeja were stolen. Her further version is that pursuant to the complaint, police had reached at the house on the next day. She has further testified that after six months of the incident, police had brought the accused to that house.

11. PW4 has also testified that while she