The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad. ... Petitio ners/Appellants/Acc used ...Respondents/Compla i nant Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl A PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : SMT. S MADHAVI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER --7 n THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.261 of 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 aggrieved by the impugned Judgment daied27.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2018 passed by the learned lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred as 'the learned appellate Court') confirming the Judgment dated 08 11 2018 in C.C.No.228 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad FAC ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial Court'), for the offence under Section 411 of the lndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as'lPC').

02. Heard Sri A Prabhakar Rao. learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of tire prosecution is that in the intervening night of 24t25 OS 2018, at Kamalapur Village, the complainant parked his motorcycle bearing No. Ap 1S Bp ) 0706 (Honda Passlon Pro) in front of his house at about 19:00 hours on 24.05.2018. On the next day, i.e.,

25.05.2018, at about 05.30 hours, he found that his motorcycle was missing. On 29.05.2018 at 10:00 hours, he lodged a report with the Police, pursuant to which FIR/Crime No.86 of 2018 was registered against accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC

04. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence under Section 379 of lPC, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 41'1 of lPC. Consequently, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the said offence

05. Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners- 3 accused Nos.2 to 6 preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court The said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court.

06. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. OT. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 411 of lPC. lt is submitted that the said motorcycle was recovered from the bushes behind District Medical and Health Office at Warangal but where the petitioners have no right to access, which is part and parcel of DM&HO Office. The learned trial Court having held that the offence under Section 379 of IPC was not proved but erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 411 of IPC basing on the alleged recovery from a place, where the petitioners have no right to access The required ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 411 of lpC are not 4 made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 Hence, he prayed that the Judgments passed by both the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court be set aside by allowing the present Criminal Revision Case.

08. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case

09. Both the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, arrived at a concurrent finding that the offence under Section 411 of IPC was established against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Consequently, they were convicted and sentenced for the said offence

10. To substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined three witnesses ie PW1 to PW3, and got marked 5 Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 is the complainant; PW2 is the mediator; and PW3 is the lnvestigating Officer

11. As seen from the record placed before this Court which is the record of the appellate Court, PW1-complainant deposed that on 24.05.2018 at 19:00 hours he parked his motorcycle in front of his house and on the next day morning he found his motor cycle was missing, for which he lodged a complaint before the Police alleging that some unknown persons stolen his two wheeler. PW1 was not cross- examined. So also, the evidence of PW2 shows that PW2 was travelling on a vehicle and the Police have stopped the said vehicle and shown the accused Nos l to 6 along with six motorbikes, for identification PW3 deposed about the investigation done in this case.

12. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available record. lt is apparent on the face of the record that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court by way of concurrent findings acquitted the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence under Section 379 of lPC. Further, the petitioners-accused 6 \ f* Nos.2 to 6 were found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of lPC.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note that Section 411 of IPC requires proof of the following essential ingredients. (i) The property ln question /ls stolen property; (i0 The accused received or retained such property; and (iii) The accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the propefty was sfoien.

14. After careful analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, PW'l- complainant merely stated that his motorcycle went missing in the night of 24125.05.2018. He did not witness the theft, nor did he depose anything connecting the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 to the alleged incident. Significantly, PW1 was not cross-examined, but his testimony does not disclose any fact showing possession, custody, or control of the stolen vehicle by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 tb 6. I .,..$ 7 I I PW2-mediator deposed that he was travelling on a vehicle when Police stopped it and showed him the accused Nos.'1 to 6 along with six motorcycles for identification. However, PW2 does not state that the recovery was made from the petitioners, or that he witnessed them in possession of the stolen motorcycle. His evidence, at best, proves that the petitioners were shown along with certain motorcycles by the Police; it does not establish conscious possession. PW3- lnvestigating Officer stated that the motorcycle was recovered from bushes behind the DM&HO Office, Warangal. lt is an admitted case that this is not an open public place but part of the DM&HO premises, and there is no evidence showing that the petitioners had any access or exclusive control over that place. ln the absence of proof of possession and knowledge, mere recovery of stolen property from a place not shown to be in the exclusive possession of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot by itself establish the offence under Section 411 of IPC lt is settled law that possession must be conscious and exclusive to attract the penal provision under Section 4i1 of IpC and without proof \ 8 of possession and knowledge, conviction under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained. 'l 5. ln light of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution case suffers =.; _ from material contradictions and that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle from the bxclusive possession of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 has not been proved Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 41 1 lPC. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside

16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment dated

27.O2.2O19 in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2018 passed by the learned lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. Consequently, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are acquitted for the offence under Section 411 of lPC. 9 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous app[ications, if any, shall stand closed. sor-f .cownr sHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To

1. The lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar 2. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurabad, Karimnagar 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK,PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.261of 2019 1 HESrl ./: .c! t 2 I JAN 2026 ! I () ALLOWING THE CRLRC q ,fd t6,, Yr-