Karri Satyanarayan, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2110 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1660 OF 2006


ORDER:-

     Crime No.80 of 2000 was registered in Mummidivaram

Police Station on the basis of a complaint given by one Mandala

Subba Rao in July, 2000 that there was a theft of a gold

necklace from his house during the night. This case was

initially closed on the ground that the culprits could not be

identified. Subsequently, in the course of investigation of

another crime bearing No.20 of 2001 in I.Polavaram Police

Station, the revision petitioner herein had given a confessional

statement in the presence of mediators that he had committed

the offence in the present case and had sold the jewelry stolen

by him, in this case, to jewelers in Yanam. On the basis of this

confessional statement, six pieces of jewelry were recovered from

one merchant, namely P.W.9. At that stage, the de facto

complainant, who had earlier reported theft of one gold necklace

only, had changed his version and stated that all the six pieces

of jewelry, which were marked as M.Os.1 to 6 in the trial, had

been stolen from him.


     2.     After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed and

the case was taken up as C.C.No.114 of 2002 by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram. After trial and

hearing both sides, the trial Judge had convicted the revision

petitioner for an offence under Section 411 I.P.C and sentenced
                                    2




him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months after

setting of the detention period of the accused in the crime as per

Section 428 Cr.P.C.


      3.    Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner filed Crl.A.No.186 of 2004 before the II Additional

District   and     Sessions    Judge,   East   Godavari    District   at

Amalapuram         and   the   same     came   to   be   dismissed    on

29.09.2006

, confirming the conviction and the sentence given by

the trial Court.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has

now approached this Court.

5. Sri Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the conviction of the petitioner is based solely on

the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner and the

identification of the petitioner by P.W.9, who is said to have

purchased the jewelry, said to have been stolen from the de

facto complainant. He submits that the identification of the

petitioner by P.W.9 was done in the Court and without any

earlier identification parade being conducted, and as such, the

said identification cannot be accepted or become the basis for

convicting the petitioner. He submits that the change of the

statement of the de facto complainant to include five more

articles of jewelry, is clearly an afterthought and would raise any

amount of doubt on the deposition of the de facto complainant. [

6. Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that except the statement of P.W.9,

that he had purchased the said pieces of jewelry from the

petitioner, no material in the form of sale documents or internal

records of P.W.9 had been placed before the Court to

corroborate the statement of P.W.9. He submits that in the

absence of such corroboration, no case can be made out against

the petitioner.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

recovery of articles had happened on the basis of the

confessional statement and these articles have already been

identified by both the de facto complainant as well as P.W.9. He

further submits that P.W.9 had clearly identified the petitioner

as the person who sold the stolen jewelry, which places beyond

doubt the fact that the jewelry came from the custody of the

petitioner. He submits that once it is demonstrated that the

jewelry came from the custody of the petitioner, the burden of

showing how the jewelry came into his custody would shift to

the petitioner and the same has not been discharged. In these

circumstances, he submits that there is no anomaly or lacuna

in the judgment of either the trial Court or the appellate Court

which requires any interference by this Court.

8. Having heard both sides, this Court does not find

any reason to overturn the confirmation of the petitioner by the

trial Court and the subsequent confirmation of the said

conviction by the appellate Court. It is true that there is a

change in the version of the de facto complainant as to the

number of pieces of jewelry that have been stolen from him.

However, this contradiction or discrepancy cannot be looked

into in isolation. The statement of P.W.9 positively identifying

the petitioner as the person who had sold the jewelry to P.W.9

has not been shaken. It is not the case of the petitioner that

P.W.9 is speaking under duress or doubt or on account of ill will

to the petitioner. P.W.9 is a third party and as such, the

testimony of P.W.9 cannot be rejected out of hand. In the

absence of any doubt on the credibility of P.W.9, the finding

given by both the Courts below that the jewelry came from the

custody of the petitioner and such jewelry could be recovered

only on account of the confessional statement of the petitioner

does not require any interference by this Court.

9. In the circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner

under Section 411 of I.P.C is affirmed.

10. As far as the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for

six months is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was

detained in custody as an under trial for a period of one month.

In view of the passage of more than 16 years since the petitioner

was convicted, this would be a fit case for taking a lenient view

in the matter and reducing the sentence of six months of

rigorous imprisonment given by the trial Court and affirmed by

the appellate Court to a period for which the petitioner has

already undergone imprisonment.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly

allowed by confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the

offence under Section 411 I.P.C and reducing the sentence of

imprisonment from six months rigorous imprisonment to

imprisonment for the period already undergone by the

petitioner.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 23-06-2021

RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1660 OF 2006

Date : 23-06-2021

RJS