STATE Vs. ARUL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/State has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of Acquittal dated 11.4.2005 passed in C.A. No. 105 of 2004, by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Tiruchirappalli. The case of the appellant/Prosecution is that on 23.6.1997, at about 4.00 a.m. in the early morning, the Inspector, Crime Intelligence Branch, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli Junction along with his co -employees, got the information that the Copper Communication Wires belonging to Railways was stolen and was keeping a secret watch at Ponmalai G -corner area and on that time, the First Respondent/First Accused came from the direction of North to South with a plastic bag and when he was stopped and enquired, he had not offered proper explanation and thereafter, when he was searched in the presence of co -employees, the Copper Wires weighing 1 -3/4 kilogram was found to be in his possession without any receipt or bill and the same was seized in a Mahazer. Furthermore, the First Respondent/First Accused gave a confession and based on that confession, a search was conducted in the shop of Second Respondent/Second Accused at about 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. and the alleged Copper Wires of 4 copper scroll weighing 6 -3/4 kilogram sold by the First Respondent/First Accused was seized and also the Second Respondent/Second Accused gave a confession and he was arrested and under the said circumstances, the First Respondent/First Accused was purported to have committed offence as per Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (since he was already punished in C.C. No. 1189 of 1991) and the Second Respondent/Second Accused was purported to have committed offence as per Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

(2.) BEFORE the Trial Court, on behalf of the appellant/State (Prosecution), three witnesses were examined and 12 exhibits were marked in order to find out whether, there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the Respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A2 and as against the First Respondent/First Accused, a charge was framed under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and as against the Second Respondent/Second Accused, a charge was framed under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and it was read over and explained to them, but, they denied the charges. Later, on the side of the appellant/Prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exhibits P -1 to 23 were marked and also M. Os. 1 to 4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked.

(3.) THE Trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record found the First Respondent/First Accused guilty under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with an award of fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, awarded Simple Imprisonment for three years. In respect of the Second Respondent/A2, it imposed a punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act 1966 and awarded a find of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine imposed a further three months Simple Imprisonment.