THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1716 of 2005 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Prodtur Nagaraj … Petitioner/ Accused AND The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through P.S. S.R. Puram, Vide Crime No.55/99. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1716 of 2005 ORDER: The sole accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of about 100 days. The appeal therefrom stood dismissed. Sri T. C. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the accused contended that the offence against the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 21/22.08.1999, at about 3 a.m., the accused committed theft of Electrical Larson and Turbo Company Starter (MO.1) worth ` 1,000/- from the mother of PW.1. The accused was caught red handed by PWs.1 and 2 and another and was produced before the police together with Ex.P.1 complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint and that the trial Court and the appellate Court did not properly appreciate the evidence. Smt. V. Poornasri, representing the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is clinching and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 4. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence. PW.1 caught hold of the accused shortly after the commission of theft while the accused was running away with MO.1. Indeed, the accused was caught during the small hours of the day of about 3 a.m. However, he was detained by PWs.1 and 2 till morning, so much so, there cannot be any doubt about the identity of the accused. The offence occurred in Bodidevarapalli village. The complaint was lodged at S.R. Puram Police Station. The complaint was lodged at about 2.30 p.m. which was registered as Ex.P.2 First Information Report. Where the incident occurred was at a village different from the place where the Police Station is situate, I do not consider that there was any unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, does not need any interference. 5. Regarding the quantum of punishment to be imposed against the accused, it may be recalled that the trial Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 100 days. MO.1 is worth Rs.1,000/-. The accused was caught in the process of committing theft. He did not enjoy the result of his theft. He is a 27-year-old labour. Taking the calling and the age of the petitioner as well as the value of MO.1 into consideration, I consider that further lenient view deserves to be taken against the accused. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was in jail for about one month. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, so far as the conviction is concerned. The conviction, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is affirmed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 100 days, as imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, is modified to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.10.2011 Isn