(1.) This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2001 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessnions Judge, Cuddapah in SC No.411 of 2000.
(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the revision petitioner herein, who is resident of D.C. Satram. Railway Kodur, who is said to be notorious criminal and ex-convict, entered the house of PW1 D. Mohan Rao, through the main door and suddenly closed and bolted the door from inside and took out a dagger and threatened PW1 and his wife PW2 and directed them to hand over jewellery. Due to fear, PW1 handed over his gold ring studded with green stone weighing 10 grams and PW2 handed over her gold Bharathi chain weighing 32 grams and PW2 also handed over cash of Rs.5,000/-. It is further alleged that the culprit kept P.Ws.l and 2 in the backyard of their house and closed the door from outside and escaped with booty worth Rs.20,000/-. On 7-9-2000 at about 8.30 a.m. P.W.7 accompanied by P.W.3 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed about the offence and some of the gold property were recovered under the cover of mediator-nama. P.W.I identified the accused in the identification parade held by P.W.8 and also identified the property. Hence the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 384, 392 and 398-A IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 384, 392 and 398-A also and committed the case of Sessions Court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah framed charges under Sections 455, 392 and 342 IPC. The plea of the accused is one of denial. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has recorded the finding of fact of committing the offence and proving charges against the accused under Sections 458, 392 and 398-A and Section 342 IPC. The accused has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years for each of the offence under Sections 459 and 392 IPC read with Section 398 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. He also sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 342 IPC, in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to P.W.I and M.Os.2 and 3 are ordered to be returned to P.W.2. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2001 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. The learned Principal Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. Thereupon, the accused invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) Sri J. Ugra Narasimham, learned legal aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused contends that no proper identification has been conducted in this case. It is also contended that the entire confessional statement has been marked which is not admissible and it is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further contended that the reasoning given by the appellate Court is faulty and there is no proper appraisal of the evidence.