1
Dr. GRR, J
crlrc_596_2016
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.596 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Petitioner-Accused No.2 against the judgment dated 08.01.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet confirming the judgment dated 24.06.2015 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel in C.C.No.1058 of 2015 convicting the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that this case was one out of the batch cases disposed against the other accused persons in Crl.R.Cs.230, 576 and 533 of 2016, Crl.R.Cs.300, 524 and 561 of 2016, Crl.R.Cs.303, 536 and 493 of 2016, Crl.R.Cs.299, 597 and 491 of 2016, Crl.R.Cs.229 and 531 of 2016 and requested to pass similar orders as decided in the said cases.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reported no objection to decide the matter as such.
2
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_596_2016
5. Perused the record.
6. As per the prosecution case on 02.05.2014 at 11.00 hours, the de-facto complainant, the Assistant Engineer (Operations), Sub-Station, Mulugu lodged a report about theft of 1 No. 25 KVA DTR and 3 Nos. 16 KVA DTRs at Markook Village and also at various places in the limits of Mulugu Mandal by unknown persons and that he inspected the spot and confirmed the theft of HP and LV coils, oil of transformers, core laminations worth below Rs.20,000/- from the idle transformer tank.
7. Basing on the said report, the SI of Police of PS Mulugu registered a case vide Crime No.80 of 2014 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. During the course of investigation on 23.09.2014 at 5:30 PM, while the police were conducting vehicle checking at Vantimamidi Forest Check Post on Rajeev Rahadari, they found a car bearing No. AP 09 DE 7655 coming from Mulugu proceeding towards Hyderabad. On seeing the Police, the driver of the car reversed the car. The Police chased the vehicle, stopped it and found seven (07) persons in the said car along with 150 Kg. Copper Wire bundles in a white plastic bag. They were brought to Mulugu Police Station along with the car. On interrogation in the presence of the mediators, they confessed committing thirty (30) offences in the limits of sixteen (16) Police Stations of Medak and Rangareddy Districts.
3
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_596_2016
8. The Investigating Officer recorded the confessional statements of the accused and recovered the crime property (MO1), Indica Car (MO2) and the instruments used for committing the offences (MOs 3 to 16). He affected their arrest and produced them before the court and after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet against them for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
9. The case was taken cognizance by the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel and tried against A1 to A7 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC vide C.C.No.352 of 2014. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MOs 1 to 16. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused persons.
10. The case was subsequently transferred to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel on its establishment and the same was re-numbered as C.C.No.1058 of 2015. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found A1 to A7 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and convicted them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) months for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
4
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_596_2016
11. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet vide Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 and on re-appreciating the evidence confirmed the judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.1058 of 2015 dated 24.06.2015 in convicting the appellants under Section 379 of IPC and sentencing them as above.
12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015, dated 08.01.2016, A2 preferred this revision contending that the entire case of the prosecution was based on confession and recovery panchanama, the said confession and recovery panchanama was contradictory to the charge-sheet and the evidence of the prosecution. The court ought to have considered the discrepancies in the version of the Investigating Officer from the charge-sheet to that in his chief-examination affidavit, there were also discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the weight of the crime property (MO1). The alleged date of incident was much prior to the date of arrest, no crime of similar nature was registered in any of the near-by Police Stations around 23.09.2014. The courts below misconstrued Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and held that MO1 was seized in pursuance to the confession of A1, but in fact, Police already seized it prior to recording the confession of A1 and prayed to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 dated 08.01.2016 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet. 5
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_596_2016
13. All the Criminal Revision Cases preferred by the other accused persons were decided by this Court on 12.09.2022 by answering all the points raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners therein similar to the points raised herein by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd.Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra1 regarding the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court is also in agreement with the said observations.
14. The judgments of the trial court in C.C.No.1058 of 2015 and of the lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 are in accordance with the law. This Court does not find any patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law in deciding the said cases by the concerned courts. As such, the said judgments do not call for any interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
15. As the Petitioner-Accused No.2 was in judicial custody from 24.09.2014 to 24.06.2015 and the said period was given set off by the trial court under Section 428 Cr.P.C., this Court also considers it appropriate to modify the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine imposed against the petitioner. 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 596 6 Dr. GRR, J crlrc_596_2016
16. As such, the Criminal Revision Case is partly-allowed, maintaining the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused No.2 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC but modifying the sentence of imprisonment and reducing it to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him while maintaining the sentence of fine.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J 21st November, 2022 nsk.