Prosecution must prove exclusive possession and knowledge of stolen property for conviction under Section 411 IPC.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 6 aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 27.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2018 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred as ‘the learned appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment dated 08.11.2018 in C.C.No.228 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, (hereinafter referred as ‘the learned trial Court’), for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 24/25.05.2018, at Kamalapur Village, the complainant parked his motorcycle bearing No. AP 15 BP

0706 (Honda Passion Pro) in front of his house at about 19:00 hours on 24.05.2018. On the next day, i.e., 25.05.2018, at about 05:30 hours, he found that his motorcycle was missing. On 29.05.2018 at 10:00 hours, he lodged a report with the Police, pursuant to which FIR/Crime No.86 of 2018 was registered against accused No.1 and the petitioners–accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

04. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 and the petitioners–accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Consequently, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the said offence.

05. Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 6 preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court.

06. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6.

07. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. It is submitted that the said motorcycle was recovered from the bushes behind District Medical and Health Office at Warangal but where the petitioners have no right to access, which is part and parcel of DM&HO Office. The learned trial Court having held that the offence under Section 379 of IPC was not proved but erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 411 of IPC basing on the alleged recovery from a place, where the petitioners have no right to access. The required ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 411 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Hence, he prayed that the Judgments passed by both the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court be set aside by allowing the present Criminal Revision Case.

08. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismi