The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding possession of stolen property can only be upheld when such possession is fully and convincingly established.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram as per the judgment dated 16.11.2015 in C.C No.253/2011, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court- II, Thiruvananthapuram, as per judgment dated 17.10.2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 356/2015. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2011 at about 8:30 p.m., at the KSRTC Bus Stand, Thampanoor, while PW1 was boarding a bus, the accused committed theft of a purse containing Rs. 200/- from the back pocket of PW1, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. MO1 to MO4 were exhibited and identified. PW1 is the de facto complainant whose purse was allegedly stolen. PW2 to PW4 were independent witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. However, they did not support the prosecution case. PW5 is a Home Guard attached to Thampanoor Police Station, who deposed that he saw PW1 and others chasing the accused and assisted in restraining him. PW6 is a Civil Police Officer who claimed to have witnessed the chase and stated that MO1 (purse) and MO2 (identity card) were found in the possession of the accused. PW7 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and filed the final report after conducting the entire investigation.

5. The case relates to an alleged incident of pickpocketing, where the accused is said to have stolen a purse from the back pocket of PW1, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, while he was boarding a bus. PW1 deposed that on 17.03.2011 at about 8:30 p.m., after his duty, while he was boarding a bus from Thampanoor bus stand, he felt someone attempting to remove his purse from his back pocket. On sensing this, he turned back and caught hold of the hand of a person. The said person then struck off his hands and fled from the spot. PW1 chased him, shouting “thief, thief,” and was joined by autorickshaw drivers and later by PW5 and PW6. The accused was eventually restrained, and PW1 stated that he saw the accused holding his purse. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police station, and Ext. P1 First Information Statement was lodged.

6. It is undisputed that both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently found the accused guilty, primarily relying on the testimonies of PW1, PW5, and PW6. PW1 is the de facto complainant, while PW5 is a home guard and PW6 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, both attached to Thampanoor police station. Although PW2 to PW4, the independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution case, PW5 and PW6 supported the prosecution version.

7. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the present case was falsely foisted due to an altercation between PW1 and the accused that occurred at Thampanoor bus stand on the alleged date of the incident. However, apart from a mere suggestion during cross-examination, no evidence was adduced to substantiate that such an altercation had taken place. Moreover, the said suggestion was denied by PW1. Therefore, the contention that this case was fabricated cannot be accepted.

8. However, it cannot be ignored that in the case at hand, even PW1 do