THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.411, 412, 413 AND 415 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The revisions are filed against the judgments in Criminal Appeal Nos.26, 24, 23, and 25 of 2005 on the files of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, where-under the conviction of the accused in Calendar Case Nos.23, 10, 9, and 19 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Proddatur respectively, were confirmed. The revision petitioner in all the revision cases is the same. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainants in all the cases have lodged complaints about the loss of their TVS Mopeds. During the course of investigation on 30.11.2002 at about 12.00 Noon the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Proddatur, proceeded along with the panch witness by name P.Suresh Reddy and another and found the accused at Tallamapuram cross roads when he was in possession of TVS Moped. On seeing the police, the accused tried to run away, but however he was apprehended. He gave a voluntary confessional statement regarding possession of the TVS moped, which was stolen. Subsequently, in pursuance of his confession, he took the police and the panch witnesses to his house and four TVS mopeds were produced by him. The police seized the same under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, he led to the mechanic shop of one Narayana and where two mopeds were seized and thereafter, the accused led to the house of one Kasi Rao and the police seized a motorcycle under different panchanamas. 3. In support of the above seizures the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the panch witness Suresh Reddy and also the evidence of G.V. Sivaiah, Inspector of Police. The Courts below have accepted their evidence and accordingly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him. 4. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the revision petition/accused for being in possession of the stolen property? 5. POINT: In all these cases, the complainants, who lost their vehicles, were examined and they identified the property that was lost in the theft. The dates of commission of offence are different dates. Since the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC, the Court has to take into consideration whether the prosecution has proved the possession of the accused of the stolen property. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the evidence of panch witness Suresh Reddy is not believable since he could not say as to what was the nature of the house the accused was owning and if such is the case, the identity of the accused and also the production of the property at his instance cannot be believable. 7. It is to be noted that the crime is of the year, 2002 and the evidence of panch witness was recorded long thereafter. Therefore, the descriptive particulars of the house of the accused being not mentioned by the panch witness is not a ground to discard his evidence. The Courts below have accepted that there is no enmity between the panch witness and the accused and further there is also no motive for the police to implicate the accused. It is difficult to believe that so many vehicles would have been produced or planted by the police if really they were not seized at the instance of the accused. The Courts below have rightly accepted the evidence of the panch witness and supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Minor contradictions, which were bound to arise, have no bearing on the truthfulness of the version of the panch witness. The Courts below have therefore rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleaded for mercy with regard to sentence. 9. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences and nature of the incident, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently. He is entitled for set-of of the remand period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed in part. The lower Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrant for apprehension of the accused. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:16-12-2011 INL