PARVEEZ PASHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.2615/2006, in the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 4/3/2008 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC ") and was sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.50/2008, in the Court of the Fast Track Court-III at Tumkur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2615/2006. It is challenging the judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Trial Court as well the learned Sessions Judge's Court, the accused/petitioner herein has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 5/5/2006, when PW-1 (CW-1) - Smt. Naveena had kept her golden Maangalya chain on the table in her mother's house at Vinoba Nagar, Tumkur, within the limits of the complainant Police Station and had gone to take bath in the late evening at about 10:30 p.m., after completing the bath, when she came out and searched for her Maangalya Chain, the same was found missing. Suspecting that somebody has committed theft of her Maangalya chain, which was weighing 35 grams and valued at Rs.20,000.00, she lodged a complaint to the Police as per Ex.P- 1. The Police after completing the investigation claimed to have recovered the said Maangalya chain from the custody of the accused, filed charge sheet against him for the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the IPC.

(3.) The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all five (5) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-3(a) and produced one Material Object at MO-1. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.