The court reinforced the validity of eyewitness testimony in affirming convictions under IPC sections for burglary and theft.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.302/2012 of Sessions Court, Manjeri, by which it confirmed the conviction and judgment passed by the trial court.

2. The prosecution case is that on 7.8.2008, at about 2.30 am, accused committed house breaking by night for the purpose of committing theft into building No.12/48 of Elamkulam Panchayat belonging to PW1 and committed theft of 9.75 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the inmates of the said house. Accused thereby committed 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 PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1. 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 said offences. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.302/2012, it was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was confirmed.

5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision, 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 sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court.

8. PW1 is the defacto complainant, who laid Ext.P1 first information statement qua the theft which took place in his house. Ext.P1(a) is the FIR. According to PW1, on the date of incident, while the inmates of the house were sleeping, a theft took place in his house and the gold ornaments worn by PW2, PW3 and their children were stolen by the thief.

9. PW2 and PW3 who are the inmates of the house have also testified regarding the theft took place in their house. There is no reason to suspect the version of PW1 to PW3 regarding the theft, which took place in their house on 7.8.2008.

10. PW4 testified that he running a jewellery named “New Smitha Jewellery'; that accused is known to him; that the accused had sold gold ornaments in his shop. Subsequently police had brought the accused to his shop and recovered the MO1 gold ingot weighing 58 grams as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar, he had signed in Ext.P2 as a witness.

11. PW8, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna has testified that the accused who was found in suspicious circumstances was arrested and Crime 1163/2008 was registered; that upon interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement regarding the offence of theft of gold ornaments and the sale of stolen gold to the shop of PW4. Accordingly, he took the accused to the shop of PW4 and recovered MO1 gold ingot from the shop of PW4.

12. It is in evidence that MO1 gold ingot was recovered from the 'New Smitha' Jewellery run by PW4 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. PW4 the jewellery owner has categorically testified that