THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.200 OF 2005 Date: 27.12.2011 Between: Katika Yadesh @ Yadaiah …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.200 of 2005 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner in this revision case is accused No.1 in C.C.No.151 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal (trial court). He along with accused Nos.2 and 3 in the above case was tried on a charge under Section 392 IPC. The trial court after considering the evidence by its judgment dated 25.02.2002 convicted all the accused for the aforesaid charge and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- with a default prison sentence of one month for non-payment of fine. 3. Questioning the above judgment of the trial court, the petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.56 of 2002. That appeal was dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Nalgonda (appellate court), by its judgment dated 29.01.2004 and assailing the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd days of December 2000 at about 1.30 am this petitioner (A-1) along with accused Nos.2 and 3 committed robbery in the house of P.W.1 M.Janaki Ram Reddy. P.W.2 M.Sumathamma (wife of P.W.1) and P.W.3 Pasham Laxmamma (mother-in-law of P.W.1) were also present in the house of P.W.1 at that time. It is alleged that certain gold ornaments marked as M.Os.1 to 6 were stolen from the house of P.W.1 in that robbery. It is further stated that accordingly a case was registered in the concerned police station and P.W.10 G.Sivaramulu the then CI of Police, Nakrekal took up investigation and in the course of investigation on the night intervening 1st and 2nd days of December 2001 and recovered some of the stolen properties from the possession of the petitioner and some other properties from A- 2 and A-3. It is also the version of the prosecution that subsequently a test identification parade was held wherein all the accused were identified by P.Ws.1 to 3 and it is also mentioned that P.W.7 R.Malsoor a finger print expert confirmed that the finger prints detected at the house of P.W.1 soon after the incident showed that they belong to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner and the other accused are liable to be punished for the offence of robbery. 5. Both the trial court and the appellate court accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding the robbery of M.Os.1 to 6 and also recovery of the same from the possession of the petitioner and the other accused as spoken to by P.W.10 the circle inspector and the panch witnesses who spoke about the recovery of the said properties. In addition to the above circumstances in the evidence, both the trial court and the appellate court also relied upon the evidence of the investigation officer and also P.W.7 R.Malsoor, finger print expert to conclude that the petitioner entered the house of P.W.1 as his finger prints were also found there. In other words, both the courts held that the evidence on record would show that M.Os.1 to 6 belong to P.W.1 and they were subjected to robbery as spoken to by P.W.1 and were subsequently recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the other accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 6. It should be noted that so far as the recovery of stolen gold items belonging to the family of P.W.1 from the petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion that the findings given by both the courts below on that aspect cannot be said to be unreasonable and against evidence. This apart, the evidence of the finger print expert i.e. P.W.7 would show that certain chance finger prints were found in the house of P.W.1 soon after the commission of offence and they were found to be those of the petitioner. The complicity of the petitioner can be said to have been proved by this evidence of the finger print expert also in addition to the above evidence relating to the recovery. Thus it may be noted that though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 that his version before police was that all the accused were wearing masks the defence contention that the evidence relating to test identification parade should be thrown out becomes insignificant and can be ignored in the face of the above evidence. The evidence relating to the above recovery of stolen properties and detection of finger prints of the petitioner in the house of P.W.1 soon after the occurrence of the incident, it follows that the conviction of the petitioner for the charge under Section 392 IPC has to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. It is not necessary to go into other offences which the charge sheet may disclose such as house trespass etc., against the petitioner as he was tried only for the charge under Section 392 IPC. 7. Now coming to the quantum of sentences, it has been brought to my notice that accused Nos.2 and 3 in the case earlier filed Crl.R.C.Nos.212 and 213 of 2004 in this court questioning their convictions and in those revisions while confirming the convictions this court reduced the substantive sentences of imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment. The judgments in those two cases are said to have been delivered on 15.11.2010. In the circumstances, it follows that the present petitioner has also to be punished with the same term of imprisonment. 8. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for the aforesaid charge is reduced from three years to two years while maintaining the fine amount confirmed by the trial court. The under trial custody of the petitioner, if any, shall be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the order of the appellate court in all other respects is confirmed. 9. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 27th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.200 OF 2005 DATE: 27.12.2011