THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

(Dated this the 10th day of June, 2026)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Thalassery, arising out of C.C. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in the above case.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 26.09.2001, the accused, two in number, in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft, trespassed into the office of Mariya Stone Crusher, Vazhamala and committed theft of a rock driller worth Rs.20,000/ and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 r/w 34 of the IPC.

3.During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, the trial court found the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of IPC, and he was convicted. For the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The second accused was acquitted.

4.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.24/2004 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc III, Thalassery, who heard the appeal, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred this revision petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The records have also been perused.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court recorded a finding of conviction without properly appreciating the facts and evidence adduced in the case. According to the learned counsel, the conviction of the accused is founded solely on the alleged recovery of the stolen articles purportedly effected pursuant to a confession statement made by the accused. It was contended that a conviction based exclusively on recovery evidence is unsustainable in law unless such recovery is corroborated by other reliable and independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The learned counsel further assailed the recovery by contending that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the recovery was not effected solely based on the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused. According to the learned counsel, when the Manager of the company was examined as PW1, he categorically deposed that, even prior to the arrest of the accused, he had received information that the accused had sold the stolen jackhammer to a shop at Mananthavady. Relying upon this portion of PW1's testimony, the learned counsel vehemently argued that, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the recovery was effected exclusively on the strength of the disclosure statement made by the accused so as to attract the evidentiary value contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly found the accused guil