IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1173 OF 2004 BETWEEN: Medari Sudkahar S/o. Mogulappa …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1173 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the petitioner – accused against the judgment dated 17-12-2003 in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2001 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereunder and whereby, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner under Section 380 IPC was confirmed while setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On the mid night of 02-02-1998, the accused broke open the Kirana shop of PW-1 with an iron rod and gained entrance into the shop and committed theft of kirana articles and cash worth about Rs.1,700/-. On the next day, PW-1 lodged a complaint and the police registered the case and conducted investigation. PW-4 inspected the scene of occurrence and observed scene of occurrence in the presence of PW-3. The police seized the stolen articles i.e. soaps, cigarette packets, cassettes and net cash wroth Rs.1,700/- under the cover of panchanama and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. The charges under Sections 457 and 380 IPC or alternative charge under Section 411 IPC were framed against the accused and when they were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4, besides case property M.Os.1 to 15. 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents on his behalf. 6. The trial Court accepting the evidence of prosecution, found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted him of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each offence vide judgment dated 17-05-2001 in C.C. No.100 of 1998. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner of the charge under Section 380 IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence of the charge under Section 457 IPC. Challenging his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed this revision. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner – accused contends that it is unnatural for PW-2 to visit the shop of PW-1 in the mid night, as the shops will be closed at 10-00 PM; that there is discrepancy with regard to recovery of stolen articles; that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence in a right perspective and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence PW-2 is very clear that the accused committed theft of articles, that on the next day, PWs.1 and 2 took the petitioner to the police station and PW-1 lodged Ex.P-1 complaint and in pursuance of the confessional statement of the petitioner, the police seized the stolen articles, that proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, rightly found the accused guilty and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 10. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 IPC are truncated. Unless it is shown that any one of the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court is perverse or not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence is overlooked, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 11. The charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 380 IPC. Section 380 IPC provides that whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished. 12. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PW-2, who went to the shop of PW-1 during mid night with a view to purchase beedies. It is not unusual for PW-2 to go to the shop of PW-1 with a view that the shop will be opened at the time of his visit. Therefore, at that time, he had an occasion to see what was going on there. At that time, the accused was present committing theft of Kirana articles kept in the shop. PW-2 raised his cries and several people gathered there and when they tried to catch hold of the petitioner, he ran way from the scene of occurrence. Then, PW-2 went to the house of PW-1 and informed the same. Thereafter, both PWs-1 and 2 went to the house of the petitioner and waited at his house as the house was locked. After some time, they noticed that the sister of the petitioner came outside and they broke open the lock and found the petitioner and also the stolen articles. Then they took the petitioner to the police Station and PW-1 lodged a complaint. 13. The recitals in Ex.P-1 are completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW-1. Police arrested the petitioner and in the presence of the panch witnesses, seized the stolen articles from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner has not given any explanation accounting for the possession of M.Os.1 to 15. 14. Admittedly, PW-2 has no enmity or grouse against the petitioner. He is totally stranger to the petitioner even though he belongs to the same village. In the absence of any enmity or grouse of PW-2 against the petitioner, he would not have implicated the petitioner falsely stating that the accused has committed theft of kirana articles. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of PW-2 that it is the petitioner, who committed theft in the dwelling house in the mid night of 02-02-1998. None of the findings of both the Courts below are shown to be perverse or contrary to law and the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court needs no interference by this Court. 15. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2001 dated 17-12-2003. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J June 24, 2010 KTL