The court affirmed the conviction under IPC Sections 457 and 380, emphasizing the reliability of witness testimonies and the admissibility of obtained evidence.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner/accused challenges the judgment in Crl.A No.196/2013 of Sessions Court, Manjeri by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna in C.C.No.116/2010.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 24.11.2008 at about

2 am, accused committed lurking house trespass into the residence of PW1 and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 2¾ sovereigns.

3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement laid by PW1, the crime was registered. After completing the investigation, PW8 filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC .

4. Accused abjured guilt and faced trial.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 gold ingot was identified.

6. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence and maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 457 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 380 . The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.196/2013 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.

8. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective; that the recovery alleged to have effected pursuant to a confession is inadmissible in evidence and the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting the sentencing the accused without taking into account the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment.

10. Now let us see whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs any interference by this Court.

11. The law was set in motion by PW1 by laying Ext.P1 first information statement by alleging that in the wee hours of 24.11.2008, a theft took place in his house when the inmates of the house were asleep. According to PW1, the thief entered the house by removing the roof tiles of the kitchen and stolen away the gold ornaments weighing 2¾ of sovereigns kept in the house. He has further testified that after one month of the incident, the police officials had brought the accused to his home namely the place of occurrence.

12. PW2 is the sister-in-law of PW1 and she is an inmate of the said house. She has testified that in the incident, the gold ornaments belonging to her and her child were lost. She too testified that the culprit entered into their house after removing the roof tiles. She has further testified that subsequently, the police officials had brought the accused to the scene of occurrence.

13. PW3 has testified that he is running a jewellery shop named 'Vanitha Jewellery' at Cherupalassery. According to him, in November, 2008, accused had brought certain gold ornaments to his shop for sale; that he purchased it and gave the market value of the same to the accused. His further version is that after purchasing the said gold ornaments,