Telangana High Court
Bhagwale Rajkumar, Hyd vs P.P., Hyd on 18 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2283 of 2016
ORDER:
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
Prosecutor admitted that test identification parade was not
conducted to identify the petitioner herein. She submits that the
trial Court has rightly sentenced and convicted the petitioner
herein and the appellate Court has rightly confirmed the same.
Hence, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and she
seeks to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Case.
10. Perused the record.
11. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with
other accused has committed theft of Rs.1,000/- from the house
of de facto complainant by breaking open the doors. The de facto
complainant was examined as PW1. However, his evidence is not
helpful to the prosecution as the theft was committed in his
absence and he could not identify the accused. In his complaint
also, it was mentioned that some unknown persons have
committed theft.
12. To establish the identity of accused, test identification
parade was not conducted by the Police. Even in the absence of
test identification parade, if the witnesses had identified the
accused in the Court during trial, the same can be accepted by
the trial Court. However, there is no mention about the witnesses
identifying the accused during the course of trial in the trial Court.
Even though CCTV footage was marked as Ex.P2, there is no
material to show that the accused were identified as the persons
who have committed theft in the house of PW1, as recorded in
the CCTV footage.
13. PWs.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses to the confession-
cum-recovery panchanama and PWs.5 and 6 are the
Investigating Officers. In their evidence, though PWs.3 to 6 have
deposed that in their presence, the accused confessed about the
commission of theft in the house of PW1, such confession before
the Police is inadmissible in the eye of law. In his evidence, PW3
has deposed that some of the articles pertaining to PW1 were
recovered from the accused. The details of the said articles were
not stated and no material was produced by the prosecution to
show that the said articles were identified by PW1, except stating
theft about Rs.1,000/-.
14. Hence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not
sufficient to prove the identity of the accused and that the stolen
property belonged to the de facto complainant. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner herein cannot be convicted for the
alleged offences and the conviction and sentence recorded by the
trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are liable to be set
aside.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting
aside the judgment, dated 29.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.604 of 2015 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad, as confirmed vide judgment dated 17.03.2016
passed in C.C.No.508 of 2015 by the learned VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 18.06.2025
rev
