COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revisions are directed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.116 of 2018 dated 28.06.2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.116 of 2005 dated 25.10.2018 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Railway) Cuddaore District, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (herein after referred to as “the RPUP Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2004, on receipt of the report, the respondent and his team members had conducted secret inspection with regard to stealing of railway properties on 19.03.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. When they reached the place of occurrence, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-W-9765 was proceeded forward from east to west at cross road, in between Meppuliyur and Poovanur. They stopped the vehicle and on enquiry, they found that the accused 1 to 4 were in the lorry and they were found in possession of railway iron rail – 20 numbers, indane gas cylinder – 1, oxygen cylinder -1, hose pipe – 1, gas cutter-1. But they had no receipt or authorization for the possession of those properties which belongs to railway. All the four persons were arrested and on mahazar, all the railway properties were seized. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody and registered the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2004 for the offence under Section 3(a) of RPUP Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.CNo.116 of 2005.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.7 and no documents were marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RPUP Act and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons preferred appeals and the first appellate Court partly allowed the appeals and modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court from three years to two years. Hence, the present revision petitions.

4. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A15 & A14 in Crl.R.C.Nos.1203 & 1281 of 2022 respectively and other respective counsel appearing for the other accused submitted that even according to the prosecution, except A1 to A4, no other accused person were found in possession of any railway properties. They denied their involvement in the alleged occurrence. Except A1 to A4, other accused persons were convicted only on the strength of extra-judicial confession statement, which is the sole basis for the conviction.

4.1. He further submitted that in fact, the entire conviction based on the confession statement of the co-accused and no material produced by the prosecution to connect the other accused persons along with A1 to A4 to prove the charge. On the basis of the confession statement of A6 that too when he was under police custody, other accused persons were implicated as accused. No material recovered from other accused persons. The Courts below mechanically convicted the other accused persons only on the strength of the confession statement made by the co-accused persons and extra-judicial confession statement.

4.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the mahazar witnesses were not examined and in fact, one of the witnesses, who already member of the respondent team was examined and another independent witness was not examined by the prosecution. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the offence under Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act, wo