ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed in C.A.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, confirming the Judgment dated 06.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.293 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioners in Crime No.247 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 379 IPC and after investigation, laid charge sheet before the leaned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram. The learned Magistrate, taken the case on file in C.C.No.293 of 2012 and after completion of trial, found the guilt of the petitioners and thereby, convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week each. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, both the petitioners herein preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.75 of 2018 and made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, for disposal. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the same and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2012 at about 12.45 p.m., the petitioners committed theft of the vehicle belongs to the defacto complainant bearing Regn.No.PY01AU3951, Chase No.MD634LE5692A05403, Engine No.OE5A92005456, Orange Colour TVS Appachee Motor cycle, which was parked opposite to Star Complex at Chidambaram South Street.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution and wrongly convicted the petitioners. He would submit that P.W.4 and P.W.7 are the witnesses to the recovery and they both have stated different colours of vehicle during their examination. Actually, the vehicle of the defacto complainant which is shown in the case property is Orange in colour, whereas P.W.4 in his cross examination has stated that the vehicle recovered from the petitioners was Black in colour and P.W.7 has stated that it was White in colour. Therefore, there is a material contradiction and that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have failed to appreciate the contradiction regarding the colour of the vehicle. Further, P.W.7 has stated that the first petitioner/A1 alone had given confession statement and the second petitioner/A2 has not given any confession statement, whereas P.W.4 has stated that both the petitioners had given confession statements. If at all, based on the confession statement the vehicle was recovered, it must be in Orange in colour, whereas the recovery witnesses have stated different colours. Therefore, the vehicle marked as M.O.1 is not actually recovered from the petitioners herein and it is a put up case by the prosecution. The contradiction is a vital contradiction which would go into the root of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution itself would prove that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution and wrongly convicted the petitioners based on the perverse appreciation of evidence which warrants interference of this Court.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners were arrested and the vehicle was also recovered from them before P.W.4 and P.W.7. based on the confession statements. He would further submit that the occurrence took place in the year 2012. The chief examination of P.W.4 took place in the year 2016, whereas the cross examination took place in the year 2017 and that the Chief and Cross