DANDU CHAKRAVARTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1993 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dated 2-4-1996 confirming the conviction against the revision petitioners under Section 411, IPC in C.C.No. 146 of 1991 on the file of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, dt. 14-7-1993 though reducing the sentence from eight months rigorous imprisonment to four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposing a further fine of Rs. 500/- each in addition to Rs, 200/- in default to under rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The defacto complainant (P.W.I) reported that a 3 H.P. electric motor and 5 H.P. Mex Oil Starter fixed to his irrigation well in his field at Mukkalathur village were found stolen by some unknown offenders on 24-6-1991 and thereupon he made enquiries for the motor and the starter and then lodged a complaint with the Police on 18-7-1991. Both the revision petitioners were found standing at the Thana Check post with a gunny bundle on 20-7-1991 and they tried to runaway on seeing the Police. However, they were apprehended and on opening the gunny bag in the presence of the mediators the stolen 3 H.P. electric motor and Mex oil starter were found and the same were seized in the presence of panchayatdars. The revision petitioners were arrested and produced before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate and a charge sheet was filed against them. A charge under Section 411, IPC has been framed against both the revision petitioners and they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. P.W.I, Sri Hema Sundra Naidu, is the defacto complainant andhe identified the stolen motor (M.O.I) and starter (M.O.2) in identification parade conducted by P.W.3, Sri V. Venkatarathnam Chetty and also in the trial Court. He explained the delay in lodging the report to the Police stating that he went on searching for the same here and there. P.W.2. Subramanyam Naidu is a panchayatdar for the apprehension of the revision petitioners and opening the gunny bags and finding M.Os. 1 and 2 therein. The seizure of M.Os. 1 and 2 under mahazar Ex.P-2 is proved through him. P.W.4, P. Gajapathi Raju is the concerned Head Constable who registered the case as Crime No. 69/91 on the basis of Ex.P-1 and issued F.I.R. Ex.P-4 and P.W.5, Sri S. Mahabboba Saheb, is the Investigating Officer. After a close scrutiny of the above evidence, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty of an offence under Section 411, IPC and accordingly convicted them thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He directed M.Os. 1 and 2 to be returned to P. W.I.

(3.) Their appeal Criminal Appeal No. 108/93 to the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, was dismissed and the conviction against both the revision petitioners under Section 411, IPC is confirmed but the (sentence of rigorous imprisonment for eight months is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four months, but a further fine of Rs. 500 against each of them in addition to Rs. 200/- already imposed by the trial Court is added and in default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment is also passed. This Revision Case is directed against that judgment.