Conviction cannot rely solely on confiscation of stolen property without supporting evidence.

COMMON ORDER These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the judgments dated 24.07.2024 made in Crl.A.Nos.60 and 61 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Tiruppur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners/A1 & A2 vide judgment dated 19.04.2022 made in C.C.No.261 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruppur.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant had parked his car in front of his house in a vacant place; that since he was infected with COVID-19 virus, he was taking treatment in a hospital on

28.05.2021; that he had sent his family to his native village; that he returned to his house on 14.06.2021 at 6.00 a.m., with his family and found that his vehicle was missing; and that thereafter he had lodged a complaint to the respondent, which was registered in Cr.No.655 of 2021 for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC against unknown accused.

3. The complaint was registered by PW7, the Head Constable attached to the respondent police station. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by PW8, who went to the scene of the occurrence, prepared the observation Mahazar [Ex.P12], examined two witnesses, besides arresting A1, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1442 of 2024 and on his confession, arrested A2, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1411 of 2024 and seized the car said to have been stolen. PW9, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and filed the final report against the petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution had examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9, marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and marked two material objects viz., M.O.1 & M.O.2, to establish its case. The accused had not let in oral or documentary evidence.

5. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners.

6. Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2 and Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is absolutely no evidence as against A2; that the conviction was recorded only on the confession of A1 made to the police; that the conviction against A1 also cannot be sustained, since there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the confession and seizure of the car from A1; and that except for the seizure, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged occurrence.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra submitted that A1 is an habitual offender and there are three previous cases against him, which are either pending trial or under investigation; that he has one similar previous case pending; that the seizure has been established by the prosecution; and therefore, the said circumstances along with the other evidence on record would conclusively establish that the petitioners are guilty of the offence.

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

10. Admittedly, the only evidence available as against A2, the petitioner in Crl.RC.No.1411 of 2024, is the confession of A1. There is no seizure made at the instance of A2. The allegation against A2 is that he was found