HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.28 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-accused No.5 along with others was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in S.C.No.151 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. On behalf of defence, none was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. After a careful consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found A.1, A.3, A.5 and A.7 guilty of the charge under Section 412 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, while acquitting the said accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and also A.2 for both the offences, by judgment dated 12.05.1999. As against the said judgment, A.1 and A.5 filed Crl.A.No.140 of 1999 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, and the learned Sessions Judge on reappraisal of both oral and documentary evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, by judgment dated 30.10.2000. Aggrieved thereby, accused No.5 preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in S.C.No.151 of 1998. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A.1 to A.7 are habitual offenders having close association with each of them. They were committing thefts in the houses of rich people and distributing the booty among themselves. On 20.09.1995 at about 11.00 p.m. six unknown offenders entered into the house of P.W.1, threatened him and his family members with knives and putting them in fear of death committed theft of two small gold chains, one gold locket chain, two necklaces studded with stones, two black bead chains, one pearls chain, gold writ chain, one gold ring and cash of Rs.13,000/- and escaped with the booty threatening them not to report the matter to police. P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to police on the next day due to fear of threat made by the culprits. Based on Ex.P.1 report, P.W.6 registered Crime No.58 of 1995 for the offence under Section 395 of IPC. Then, the Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation and visited the scene of offence. During the course of investigation, on 16.01.1997 at 5.00 a.m. P.W.14, Inspector of Police, arrested A.1, A.2 and one Sai Krishna in Bobbarlanka Centre in the presence of two mediators in Crime No.129 of 1996 of Atreyapuram Police Station and seized one black bead chain from the possession of A.1 belonging to P.W.1 in pursuance of their disclosure statements. Basing on the disclosure statement of A.1, he also seized one black bead chain and one gold ring from P.W.12 and those gold articles were belonging to P.W.1. Again, on 19.01.1997 at 7.00 a.m. he arrested A.3, A.4, A.7, Gandham Eswara Rao and Pepakayala Satyanarayana at Jonnagadda Godavaritattu Centre in the presence of the mediators in Crime No.129 of 1996 at Atreyapuram Police Station and seized two gold chains and one gold chain with locket from the possession of A.7 which was the stolen property in Crime No.58 of 1995 and also one pearls chain and one Mandagolusu from A.3 along with other gold articles pertaining to other cases in pursuance of their disclosure statements. On 28.01.1997, P.W.1 identified the said property as that of him before the mediators. P.W.9, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, conducted test identification parade on the accused on 15.03.1997 on the requisition of P.W.15, Circle Inspector of Police, Tuni, and after completion of investigation P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A.5 contended that the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner as he was not identified in the trial Court by P.Ws.8, 10 and 11 who are alleged mediators at the time of alleged recovery of property and no overt act was attributed against him. He further contended that the identification parade was not properly conducted to identify the accused by P.W.1. Therefore, he prays that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner-A.5 as confirmed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgments of the Courts below vehemently contended that there is no error apparent in regard to the findings of the Courts below and in the absence of pointing out illegality or irregularity, the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed. He further contended that the petitioner is an habitual offender. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge recorded the findings and ultimately in view of recovery of M.Os.1 to 8, arrived at a conclusion that A.5 is guilty of an offence under Section 412 of IPC along with A.1, A.3 and A.7. The IV Addl. Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record concurred with the findings given by the trial Court. In his evidence, P.W.11 stated that the Head Constable of Ravulapalem P.S. arrested A.5 and seized M.O.8 gold ingot from him and thereafter he prepared Ex.P.9 mediators’ report and nothing contrary is elicited in his cross-examination in this regard. More over, no suggestions are put to him as to why false case is foisted against A.5 by planting M.O.8 gold ingot. As such, the prosecution has proved that M.O.8 gold ingot was recovered from the possession of A.5. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that there is no error apparent with regard to the findings of guilt of the petitioner-A.5 of the charge under Section 412 IPC recorded by the Courts below, warranting interference by this Court. 7. With regard to quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.5 submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread-winner of his family and he has wife and two children and he is the only person to look after them. Therefore, he prays to take a lenient view. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to family of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner- A.5 had already undergone certain period of imprisonment during pendency of the case, this Court is of the view that if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is reduced to three years from five years of the charge under Section 412 IPC, the ends of justice would be met. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction in respect of the petitioner-A.5 passed in S.C.No.151 of 1998 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.140 of 1999 by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A.5 is reduced to three years from five years and the fine imposed on him by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court stands undisturbed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.28 of 2001 (Dismissed) 8th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 28 of 2001 DATE:08.07.2010 Between: Govindu @ Kodeekalu … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondents