Credibility of identification and procedural integrity in recovery of stolen property are critical in affirming theft convictions.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed by the first accused challenging the concurrent verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Secs.461 and 380 r/w 34 IPC . He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sec.380 and to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Sec.461 .

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.4.1986 at about 11.45 AM, the petitioner herein went to the jewellery by name 'Kerala Jewellers' in Mullakkal Bazar, Alappuzha owned by PW1 under the guise of purchasing some silver ornaments. Some ornaments were shown to him. Stating that he was not satisfied with the model shown to him and stating that two ladies are to reach there, he remained in that shop. By that time, PW1, as directed, had to go to Bhima Jewellers which is situated in the very same building. When PW1 left to his shop, he had locked the table and placed the key beneath the seat. After five minutes, he returned to the shop. The petitioner was not seen there. PW1 felt suspicion. The drawer of the table was opened and the gold ingot kept in that table was found missing. PW1 deputed his son to trace the accused. But that was in vain. On the same day evening, he went to the police station and lodged Ext.P1-F.I.Statement based on which the FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested by PW5, the S.I. on 24.4.1987 in connection with another crime, Crime No.408/1986. When the petitioner was questioned, he gave a disclosure statement to the effect that the gold ingot was sold by him at M.S.Jewellers situated in Chala – Valayanchetty Theruvu for a sum of Rs.9,000/- and that if he was taken to that place, he will show the shop and person to whom it was sold. That statement was separately marked as Ext.P3(a) through the investigating officer. The evidence given by S.I., the investigating officer would show that pursuant to Ext.P3(a) statement and as led by the accused he along with the accused went to Chala – Valayanchetty Theruvu and the accused showed that jewellery and also the person/owner of that shop. According to the investigating officer, the shop owner admitted the factum of sale of gold ingot from the accused, he identified the accused and the shop owner and then handed over the gold ingot to him. That gold ingot was seized as per Ext.P2 mahazar in the presence of the accused and the witnesses. The gold ingot had a length of 121/ cm and circumference of 2cm; one end of it was seen

2 cut and removed. That gold ingot was marked as MO1. 3. The evidence given by P.W.1 would show that on the date of incident the accused/revision petitioner was in that jewellery for about 5 minutes. The evidence was given as to the purpose for which he had gone to that shop.

Therefore, the contention that it was not possible for PW1 to later identify the petitioner cannot be accepted at all. Since the appellant was sitting the shop and when PW1 returned after about 5 minutes, PW1 noticed the surreptitious disappearance of the appellant from that shop. This sufficiently aroused suspicion in the mind of P.W.1 and that was why P.W.1 deputed his son (P.W.2) to find out whether the appellant could be seen anywhere near that place. That search continued for hours together but it was in vain and therefore it was in the evening P.W.1 lodged the F.I.Statement. In such circumstances, the evidence given by P.W.1, that he did identify the appellant as the person who had been to his shop on that day can certainly be accepted as true. The evidence regarding the same given by P.W.1 was rightly accepted by the trial court and the appellate court.

4. The next incriminating circumstance is that when the appellant was arrested and questioned, he made a disclosure statement [Ext.P3(a)] which was proved through the investigating officer. The evidence regarding the discovery of the factum of sale of the gold ingot at M/s.M.S. jewellery, Chala, Thiruvananthapuram owned by P.W.3 does not suffer