{1} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2009 Pankaj Sudhakar Dahiwal APPLICANT Age-29 years, Occ-Private Service R/o CIDCO, Aurangabad VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad ....... Mr.V.M.Kagne, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. {2} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 2. Challenge in the present criminal revision is to the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 115/2008 thereby dismissing the appeal. By the impugned judgment the lower appellate court has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant by 5th JMFC, Aurangabad in RCC No.1017/2005 whereby the applicant was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer SI for 3 months. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this criminal revision application, may briefly be stated thus- On 05.08.2005, when complainant Shobha (PW-1) was returning to her house at about 1.30 p.m. from a lane adjacent to a grocery shop, the applicant came from opposite side and snatched her Mangalsutra and ran away. Thereafter PW-1 Shobha shouted “Chor Chor” and on hearing her shouts, PW-4 Ravindra who was proceeding on a motor cycle, chased the accused and gave a dash {3} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 of motorcycle to him and caused him to fell down. At that time PW-3 Diwakar, as Assistant Sub Inspector, was also proceeding from the said road and he also chased the accused and reached near the spot and found that the accused was lying on the ground due to the dash given by PW-4. Within short time PW-1 Shobha also reached at the spot and the accused was searched and the Golden Mangalsutra was recovered from the pocket of his pant, which was identified by the complainant. Thereafter the accused and PW-1 Shobha were brought to CIDCO police station where, on the complaint of PW-1 an offence at Crime No.134/2005 came to be registered against the applicant for an offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Seizure as well as arrest Panchanamas were drawn in the police station and thereafter statements of PW-3 Diwakar and PW-4 Ravidnra and others came to be recorded. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant before JMFC, Aurangabad. The case was numbered as RCC No.1017/2005. 4. Record shows that charge was framed against the applicant for an offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal {4} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 Code. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all 5 witnesses including PW-1 complainant Shobha, who had narrated the entire incident as per the narration given in the complaint, however she could not identify the accused as the person who had snatched the golden ornament from her person. Therefore, she was declared hostile. Though she was declared as hostile to the extent of identification of the applicant, yet on rest of the counts, she has supported the prosecution case. She even identified the golden ornament, which was snatched at the relevant time. PW-2 Dr.Vaibhav, a Pancha witness to the seizure Panchanama, turned hostile. PW-3 Diwakar Patil, ASI, who, at the relevant time, was proceeding on the road and had chased the applicant, has fully supported the prosecution case. His statement was recorded within some hours after the incident. PW-4 Ravindra, who had chased the applicant on hearing shouts of the complainant, has also fully supported the prosecution case, whose statement was also recorded within a very short span after the incident. PW-5 is the investigating officer. 5. It appears from the examination of the accused u/s {5} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that his defence is of total denial and his false implication due to rivalry with the owner of Ambika Jewellers, who is the friend of PW-3 Diwakar. 6. Record shows that on appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and declined to accept the defence of the applicant. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the applicant for an offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 7. It further appears that the order of conviction was challenged by the applicant by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 115/2008 before 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2009, which is impugned in the present revision application. 8. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Though there is very limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction in the concurrent findings of facts by {6} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 both the courts below, yet I have gone through the entire record and proceedings and for my satisfaction to ascertain whether there is any perversity in the recording of findings of facts, I have also perused the evidence on record. It appears that the pivot of the prosecution case revolves round the testimony of PW-3 Diwakar and PW-4 Ravindra. Though the complainant has not supported the prosecution case to the extent of identification of the applicant, yet in her evidence she has narrated the story as to how the incident has occurred. After scanning the evidence of PW-3 and 4, I noticed that the same is reliable and confidence inspiring. Their evidence indicates that soon after the incident both of them have caught the applicant within some minutes and even during the search of the applicant they have recovered the golden ornament belonging to the complainant, which was snatched by him from her person. The evidence given of PW-3 and 4 so also recovery of stolen article from the possession of the applicant is squarely covered under the illustration A to section 114 of the Evidence Act, which reads thus- {7} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts - The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration The Court may presume - (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; 9. Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 on the point of chasing the applicant on hearing shouts of the complainant, caching the applicant and recovering the stolen article from his possession. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 about the recovery of the stolen article from the possession of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the paragraph No.3 of the cross examination of PW-3 wherein PW-3 has stated that at the time of drawing of Panchanama, no Mangalsutra was found in possession of the {8} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 applicant. This submission is devoid of any merit for the simple reason that evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 clearly demonstrate that after the appellant was caught red handed and during his search Mangalsutra was recovered, which was identified by PW-1, at that time the said Mangalsutra was handed over to PW-1 Shobha and she was brought in the police station where the same was seized under seizure memo. Considering this evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, which is not shaken even in their cross examination and additionally nothing is brought on record to disbelieve their evidence, which inspires confidence, the same is rightly accepted by both the courts below. 11. After perusing both the impugned judgments, I do not notice any perversity in respect of appreciation of evidence by the trial court and re-appreciation by the lower appellate court. There is concurrent finding of facts in respect of seizure and recovery of stolen article from the possession of the applicant. In revisional jurisdiction, I do not think it appropriate to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts by both the courts below. {9} Cri. Revision No.330/2009 12. In the result, the Revision fails and stands dismissed accordingly. Rule stands discharged. Bail bonds of the applicant stands cancelled. Applicant is directed to surrender before 5th JMFC, Aurangabad within two weeks from today failing which the concerned JMFC to issue arrest warrant against the applicant. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn330-09