ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Dr.Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), assailing the Judgment dated 25.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

3. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.402 of 2013 and they are convicted and sentenced vide the Judgment dated 30.10.2013 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence punishable under Section 457 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each on each count and the sentences under both the counts shall run concurrently. This judgment was confirmed in the appeal by the impugned judgment.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that, the PW-1 had lodged Police Report-Ex.P-1 stating that on 06.07.2013 at about 8.00 PM, closed his shop and when he re-opened at about 11.00 AM, on 09.07.2013, found the locker of the shop was brake opened and the articles were in pell-mell condition and he found 20 kgs. of silver articles and 480 grams of gold ornaments were stolen. Thereupon, Crime No.295 of 2013 was registered and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

5. In trial, the de-facto complainant was got examined himself as PW-1, his son as PW-2, mediators of scene of offence, confession and recovery panchanama as PWs 3 and 4, Finger Print Expert as PW-5 and the Investigating Officer as PW-6, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.Os 1 to 19. The defence got marked Ex.D-1.

6. The trial Court on considering the material, believing the recovery, finger prints of accused No.2 in the light of presumptions under Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, held the accused guilty for the offences, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. On Appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment had confirmed the conclusions of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the material, particularly, in finding any substantive evidence connecting the revision petitioners with the alleged offences. Further pleaded that allegedly the seized property was not got identified in the procedure prescribed under law, as such, the version of the Investigating Agency that M.Os.1 to 19 are the stolen property is not tenable. Further, the evidence of Finger Print Expert is silent as to any chance finger prints reflecting the finger prints of accused Nos.1 to 3, especially, as the statements of the witnesses are making out the possibility of other finger prints in the premises. Therefore, the material relied by the prosecution is not meeting the ingredients of the charged offences. Thus, prayed for interference and acquit the revision petitioners.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is clear as to the occurrence of theft in the shop premises of PW-1. The evidence of PW-4/panch witness in regard to confessional statement and recovery panchanama is establishing the recovery of the stolen property and the finger prints of accused No.2 are establishing the complicity of the accused. Thus, the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt and in absence of tenable ground, prayed for dismissal of the revision case.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel on either side and perused the mat