MOPIEDEVI VENKATA RAMANAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment, dated 7-1-2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2002, passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/A-2 by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Repalle, Guntur District, dated 21-12-2002 in C.C. No. 240 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The Revision petitioner will be referred as accused No. 2 for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that: P.W. 1 G. Ravi Babu, is a resident of Isukapalli Village of Repalle Mandal and he is working as an LIC agent. On 15-9-1997 he went to his office on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AHH/38 at about 10.00 a.m. and parked his Hero Honda Motor Cycle in front of the LIC Office. At about 10.45 a.m. when he came out of his office he noticed that his motor cycle was missing. Then he went to police station, Repalle and presented report Ex. P-1. Basing on the said report, D. Venkateswarlu, who was working as Sub- Inspector of Police of Repalle police station registered a case in Crime No. 131 of 1997 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and issued Ex. P-2 First Information Report. Then he examined P.W. 1 and recorded his statement and visited the scene of offence. The further case of the prosecution is that on 15/16-9-1997 about 4.00 a.m. while P. Ws. 2 to 5 were on route watch duty near Akkileru bridge they found A-1 to A-3 coming on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle and on suspicion they stopped the accused. The accused tried to run away. However, they were detained and A-1 made a confessional statement and then the confessional statements of A-2 and A-3 were also recorded and they made similar confessional statements as made by A-1. As there were no mediators, the Hero Honda Motor Cycle was seized under the cover of police proceedings. Though charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-3, the case against A-3 was separated.