THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2283 of 2016

O R D E R :

Challenging the judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2015 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad (for short ‘appellate Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.508 of 2015 by the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), was confirmed, wherein, the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2015, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 27.02.2015 at about 14.00 hours, he along with his family members went to Hayathnagar for attending a function by locking the house. On 05.03.2015 at about 15.30 hours, he returned back and found that some unknown persons entered into his house and committed theft of cash of Rs.1,000/-. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.32 of 2015 was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.508 of 2015 for the aforesaid offences.

3. During the course of trial, the de facto complainant examined himself as PW1, examined PWs.2 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 on his behalf. On behalf of petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner herein and others guilty of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 457 of IPC. A similar sentence was also imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal. On perusing the material available on record and hearing, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

6. Aggrieved further, the petitioner herein preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

7. Heard Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not considered the evidence on record in a proper perspective and recorded the conviction mechanically without applying judicious mind. Both the trial and appellate Courts ought to have seen that no independent evidence was let in by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against the petitioner. Both the Courts erred in convicting the petitioner solely on the basis of evidence of PWs.2 and 4, who are the panch witnesses to the confession of the petitioner. Test identification parade was not conducted by the Police to identify the petitioner as the person who has involved in the commission of theft. The alleged recovery of material objects was not proved and they were not marked. There is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged commission of theft. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court.

9. On the other hand, though learned Assistant Public P