BOTCHA RAJU Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision Case fifed against the concurrent Judgment of the courts below in convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 411, IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months. There are two offences committed in two different Crime Numbers; one in Crime No. 74 of 1990 and the another in Crime No. 95 of 1990. Since both the Crimes said to have been committed within one year, and the recovery was also at one and the same time, they were tried as a single case by assigning one number.

(2.) The Prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 speak about the theft of their articles. They were restored with the articles, which were stolen from their possession. P.W s. 3, 4, 6 and 7 were examined to prove that the articles, which belong to P.Ws. 1 and 2, were recovered from the petitioner to sustain the charge under Section 411, IPC against him. But all the said witnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them so as to base conviction against the petitioner. The evidence of PW.5, PW.8 and PW.9, who are all Police Officers, cannot be easily believed without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses. As such, the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of the Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses mentioned above. No particular motive is made out against the above witnesses, who turned hostile, so as to say, that they are specially interested in the Petitioner to bail him out of the offence.

(3.) In the circumstances, I am constrained to acquit the petitioner of the charge under Section 411, IPC, in both the Crime Nos. 74 of 1990 and 95 of 1990 and set him free. He shall, forthwith, be released from Jail, if he is not required in any other case, and the Registry is directed to send the advance copy to Jail. His bail bonds are cancelled. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, allowed. Revision allowed.