CRLRC/1466/2006 of Shaik Malik, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2013

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1466 OF 2006--Dated 31122013

Between:Shaik Malik

..Petitioner.

And:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,.Hyderabad…Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1466 OF 2006ORDER:

This revision is preferred against the judgment dated30-8-2006 in Criminal AppealNo.302 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional SessionsJudge, (Fast Track Court) , Guntur which confirmed theconviction and sentence imposed against the revisionpetitioner by judgment dated 9-7-2004 in C.C.No.234 of2004 on the file of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 2. The brief facts leading to this revision is asfollows:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapeta Crime PoliceStation, Guntur filed charge sheet alleging that on 10-6-2003 in between 3 A.M., and 10 A.M., theft of Taperecorder which belongs to Ravi Venkata Ramana wascommitted in car bearing No.AP 28 N-6669 and on hisreport, a case in crime No.315 of 2003 is registered. It isalso alleged that between 12 noon on 29-6-2003 to 6-30A.M., on 30-6-2003, tape recorder was committed theftfrom the Maruthi car of Y.Srinivasarao and on his report,crime No.330 of 2003 is registered. It is further allegedthat on 18-3-2004, on information, Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Kothapeta Crime Police Station along with staffand mediators proceeded to Vijaya Video Home and found A.1 in possession of tape recorders and oninterrogation, he made confessional statement and inpursuance of which, tape recorders relating to crimenumbers of his police station and Pattabhipuram Policestation were recovered from him and also from A.2 i.e.,revision petitioner herein. Trial court took cognizance ofthe offence on the basis of charge sheet and afterfurnishing copies framed charge under Section 411 I.P.C.against both the accused and conducted trial. During trial,four witnesses are examined and eight documents aremarked besides three Material Objects on behalf ofprosecution. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf ofthe accused but Exs.D.1 and D.2 contradictions in theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are marked. On an overallconsideration of oral and documentary evidence, both theaccused are found guilty for the offence under Section411 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer six months RigorousImprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction andsentence, A.2 preferred appeal to the Court of Sessionand VIII Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed appealconfirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by thedismissal of the appeal, A.2 preferred the present revision.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted thatthere is no evidence for identification of the property andthe mediator who accompanied police at the time of arrestis a stock mediator and there is no convincing evidence toshow that M.Os.1 to 3 are the stolen property. He furthersubmitted that without evidence, the accused is convictedand therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submitted that if for any reason, his argument isnot accepted since the petitioner was in jail for more thanone month. that period may be treated as punishment.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the courts found the revision petitionerguilty for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. on theevidence that stolen property was recovered from hispossession on the confession of co-accused. He furtherguilty for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. on theevidence that stolen property was recovered from hispossession on the confession of co-accused. He further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with theconcurrent findings of both the courts.

6. Now the point that would arise for myconsideration in this revision is whether the judgments ofthe courts below are legal, correct and proper?

7. POINT:

According to prosecution, tape recorders belongingto P.Ws.1 and 2 are stolen and those tape recorders wererecovered from the possession of revision petitioner whenhe was arrested on 18-3-2004. To prove the same, the owners of the tape recorders areexamined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and the mediator present atthe time of arrest of revision petitioner is examined asP.W.3 and the Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.4.

8. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that on 29-6- 2003, he parked his car in his uncle’s house and on thenext day morning, he found that the left side glass of thecar was broken and C.D.player in the car was stolen. Hefurther deposed that on 18-3-2004, he was called to policestation to identify the tape recorders and out of them, heidentified M.O.1 C.D. player as that of him. In the crossexamination, he deposed that he did not state before thepolice that he has parked his car in front of his uncle’shouse as in Ex.D.1. Except that, nothing is elicited fromhis evidence. P.W.2 deposed that he parked his car in hispremises on 29-6-2003 and on the next day morning, hefound that his left side window glass was broken andpioneer car stereo was committed theft. He furtherdeposed that on 18-3-2004, he was called to FancyKalyanamandapam to identify his car C.D. and heidentified M.O.2 as his Pioneer car C.D. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not state before thepolice that he parked his car in front of his house as inEx.D.2. Except that, nothing is elicited from this witness. P.W.3 one of the mediators deposed that on 18-3-2004 atabout 7-30 A.M. he was present when police arrested A.1who gave confession statement on the basis of which,they proceeded to old bus stand, Mangalagiri and arrested A.2 at 12-45 P.M., and recovered (six these)tape recorders from his possession under the cover ofmediator’s report. He deposed that M.Os.1 to 3 are thetape recorders among the six tape recorders that wererecovered from the possession of A.2. He also deposedthat on 18-3-2004, he and another conducted propertyidentification period in which the complainants identifiedtheir properties. P.W.4 Investigating Officer has deposedabout the investigation conducted by him.

9. The main argument of advocate for revisionpetitioner is that there is no evidence to show that M.Os.1to 3 are the stolen properties but his argument cannot beaccepted in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Both thecomplainants i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 identified their taperecorders and P.W.3 deposed that he conducted propertyidentification parade with the complainants and that thecomplainants identified their tape recorders. So, from theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that M.Os.1 to 3 are thestolen properties and that they are recovered from thepossession of revision petitioner on the basis ofconfession made by A.1.

10. According to Section 411 I.P.C., possessingstolen property is an offence. Here, from the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 3, which is supported with the evidence ofInvestigating Officer, it is clear that the revision petitionerwas in possession of stolen property when he wasarrested and thereby, prosecution proved guilt of therevision petitioner for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Both the courts rightly appreciated the evidence on recordand came to a correct conclusion and there are noimproper and incorrect findings in the judgments of thecourts below. Both the courts have not committed anyillegality either in conducting trial or in recording convictionagainst the revision petitioner. Therefore, there are nogrounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of thecourts below.

11. Lastly, advocate for revision petitionersubmitted that sentence may be reduced by treating the period already undergone as punishment. Here from therecord, it is evident that three tape recorders concerned inthis case and another three tape recorders relating toother police station were recovered from revisionpetitioner. So considering the gravity of offence, I feel thatthe courts below rightly imposed sentence of six monthsand it is not on higher side and therefore, I am not inclinedto reduce the sentence.

12. For the above reasons, it is held that therevision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Thetrial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused toundergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

14. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, theMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall standdismissed.

_______________________

JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

--Dated 31122013Dvs.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

Dvs

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1466 OF 2006--Dated 31122013