A confession and credible witness testimony can suffice to uphold a conviction in theft cases under the Indian Penal Code.

ORDER

The third accused in C.C.No.323/1993 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, is the petitioner herein. He along with three others were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case was as follows:- CW1 was conducting the Jewellery shop under the name and style “Ramakrishna Jewellery”, near Pandalam junction along the side of M.C. Road. As usual at around 8 p.m. on 4-1-92 CW1 closed the shop under lock and key. On 6-1-92 at around 8 a.m., he opened the shop. He found that the almirah was broken open and silver and gold placed in it were found missing. He also noticed that six tiles from the roof of the building were missing. Around 2 kg. of silver and 50 gms. of gold were found missing from the almirah. Immediately he informed the theft to the S.I. of Police, CW10, who registered a case under Sections 457, 461 & 380 of IPC. CW12, the then C.I. of Police, Adoor arrested A2 & A3 on 30-6-92 during the night at 3 ' O clock, when they were found in suspicious circumstances while he was conducting patrol duty. The C.I. registered Crime No.160/92 u/s 41(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. When questioned the accused confessed their involvement in the offence involved in the case at hand. They also confessed that Thajudeen and Sasi, who were arrayed as A1 & A4, also took part in the commission of the offence along with them. Hence the C.I. filed a report stating the names of the accused and deleting Sec.454 IPC. Based on the confessional statement of second accused, CW12 recovered 9.750 gms. of gold ingot from CW2 under a mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of A3, the C.I. recovered 11.600 gms. of gold ingot from CW3 under a mahazar. A1 & A4 are absconding. CW13 laid the charge sheet. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 documents and MO1 and MO 2 gold ingots. There was no defence evidence. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Magistrate convicted accused Nos.2 and 3 (the petitioner) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section

457 IPC, one year under Section 461 IPC and two years under Section 380 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.6/1998 before the Additional District and Sessions (Adhoc) Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The same was heard along with the Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1998 filed by the 2nd accused. The sessions Court dismissed the appeals. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no reliable evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The contention is that the only witness, who gave evidence against the petitioner is PW3 whose evidence cannot be relied upon, since he does not actually know the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt is the contention raised.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that PW3, who is the person to whom the petitioner had sold the gold had given clear evidence that the petitioner had sold the gold to him, which was recovered in the presence of the petitioner from the Jewellery of PW3. That is more than sufficient evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the offence charged against him, is the contention raised.

5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

6. The prosecution case is that a confession was made by the petitioner to the effect that he committed the theft and sold the gold to Rajan Jewellery owned by PW3. Based on that confession, the petitioner was taken by the Police to PW3's jewellery from where an ingot, which was made by melting the gold sold by the petitioner, has been recovered under a mahazar. PW3 has fully supported the prosecution case and no material contradictions could be brought out to discredit his evidence in cross examination. Therefore, I do not find anything wro