Bail Slip: The Petitioners were released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 29-06-2007 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. "1241 of 2007 in Crl.R.C. 846 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION ASE NO: 846 OF 2007 Crl.Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 08-05-2007 in Crl.Appeal No. 21 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam at Kothagudem confirming the Judgment dated 23-02-2004 in C.C.No. 82 ot 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu. Between: 1. Rayala Ramulu, S/o Laxmaiah, Agriculture, RJo Mucherla Village, Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District. 2. Kanali Prabhakar, S/o Venkulu, Coolie, R/o lr,4ucherla Village, Kamepaliy Ir,4andal, Khammam District. 3. Karnati Sagar, S/o Venkulu, Coolie, R/o Mucherla Village, Kamepally Manda{. Khammam District. ..PETITIONERS/ Appellants / Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 AND The State of A.P., rep. by its SHO., Kamepally PS., Khammam District, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. .,.RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO, representing SRI Ch. VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI K. VENKATESWARAO, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JTIWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.446 0F 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/accused, challenging the judgment, dated O8.O5.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2l of 2OO4 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, at Kothagudem, whereby, the judgment, dated 2O .O2.2OO4, passed in C.C.No.82 oi 2001 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, yellandu, convicting the petitioners for the olfences under Section 411 of IpC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periocl ol six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/ each, in default, to suiicr simple imprisonment for one u.eek cach, u.as conl'irmed. 2 'l'hc factual matrix rhat led to the filing of thc prcsent Criminal Revision Case is that on 1S.1 1.2000 some unknown offenders committed theft of 150 kgs of cotton from the fields of p.W. 1. In that connection a case in Cr.No.93 of 2000 was registered on the file of Kamepally police station under Section 3Zg lpC.. During the course of investigation on 10.O1.2O01 at about 4.OO pM p.W.9 arrested the petitioners and in furtherance of their confessional statement stolen cotton was seized from P.W.4 under the cover of mediators report. 3 The case was taken cognizance under Section 4l1lpC and a charge under Section 4l 1 tpc was framed against the petitioners. 2 During the course of tria1, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P. I to P.6 and M.O.1. After full fledged trial, the trial Court lound the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 4 1 1 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. 4 Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentencc imposed by the trial Court, the pctitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.2l of 2004 on the file of V Additional Sessions Juclge (FTC), Khammam, at Kothagudem. However, the learned Sessions Judge dismisscd the appeal vide judgment dated 08.05.2007. Hence the present Criminal Revision Case. 5 Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Iearned counsel representing Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners vehementiy argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonabie doubt since the property involved in this case i.e. cotton was not directly recovered from the petitioners' He further submitted that the panch witness for recovery of the property from P.W.4 turned hostile and hence the recovery is not proved and that the complainants have not identified the property in any identilication parade. 6 Heard Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondcnt - Statc. Perused the rccord ------ J 7 As seen from the record, p.Ws. I to 3 are the farmers whose cotton u'as stolen from their fields. p.ws.4 and 5 purchased cotton liom thc petitioners. p.Ws.6 is thc panch witness to the scene of offencc. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for recovery of the stolen property from P.W.4 under the cover of Ex.p.4 seizure panchanama. P.W.9 is the investigating officer. 8 There is no direct evidence to show that the petitioners have committed theft of cotton from the fields of p.Ws. 1 to 3. It is only on the confession of the petitioners police recovered the cotton from P.Ws.4 and 5. The evidence of p.W.4 is that he purchased cotton from the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were tried under Section 4 i 1 of IPC and were convicted for the said offence. 9 Section 411 IPC says that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of eithcr description for a term which may extend to thrce years or fine or u.ith both. l0 Herc in the instant case, admittedly, the stole n propcrty was rrot rccovcred from the petitioners nor did they possess the same at the time of their arrest. It was only on their confession the property was recovered from p.Ws.4 and S, -1 1l In order to establish that rhe propcrty recovcrcd from p.Ws.4 and 5 belongs to P.Ws. I to 3, thc prosecution has not taken an.\. steps for identification of propert), by P.Ws. I to 3 as stipulared undcr Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. It is not the case o[ P.Ws. I to 3 that they identified the property in the Court and that the property recovered and the property stolen from their fields is one and the same. 12 The basic ingredients of Section 411 of IPC have not been established in letter and spirit. No property was seized from the petitioners directly. However, in order to bring home the ingredients of Section 411 of IPC the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 9. However, the investigating officer has not established that the petitioners sold the cotton to P.Ws.4 and 5 since no receipts to that effect have been produced. In such circumstances it is highly improbable to bclicvc that the co on seized from P.Ws.4 and 5 was sold by the petitioners onll'. 13 Further, as seen from thc record, the matter u'as placed beftrrc the village elders and the same was dodged for some days. P.W. I lodged a complaint only thereafter as the same was not settled in the village panchayat. It seems that there are some disputes between the petitioners and the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, an inference may be drawn that the case might have been foisted /( against the petitioners in order to wreck vengeance. All these mitigating circumstances also throw some cloud on the prosecution CASE 14 For the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioners / accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the petitioners are entitled to acquittal. I 5 I n the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 08.05.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2l of 20Oa by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, at Kothagudem and also the judgment, dated 23.O2.2OO4, passed in C.C.No.82 of 200 I by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, yellandu. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal Revision case, shal stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K,ONE DEPUTY REGIST sEcTroN o FICER M R To 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. The V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam at Kothagudem. (with reconds) ihe Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu, Khammam Dist. The Station House Officer, Kamepally Police Station, Khammam Dist' The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT) One Ce to sRl. CH VENKATA NARAYANA Advocate [OPUcl Two Co Copies One Spare CopyV lrs =\ a / f I HIGH COURT DATED:0810712022 ORDER CRLRC.No.846 of 2007 ALLOWING THE CRL,R.C '\ \{E STAre o'^ 1 :l ,,) 2r l\]L ztr/l Z\ ti "i ,1 ')t .'.i \ x0* - --.-:- --:-:---::__-_- L _-: