The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. S MADHAVI' ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVV, \Dl SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.262 tf 2O19 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by t re petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 aggrieved by the impugred Judgment daled27.O22019 in CriminalAppeal No 251 o 20'18 passed by the learned lll Additional Sessions Judge , Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred as 'the learned ap[r rllsfs Court') confirming the Judgment dated 08.1 1 .20,l8 in ( C No 227 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Judi: al IVlagistrate of First Class, Huzurabad FAC ll Additi, rnal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, (hereinalt rr referred as 'the learned trial Court'), for the offence under il:ction 41 1 of the lndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I ,C')

02. Heard Sri A Prabhakar Rao, learne I counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.lVladhavi, learned As: istant public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. perused t-: record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution s that in the intervening night of 24125052018, at KamalapLr Viltage, the t \ 2 complainant parked his motorcycle bearing No AP 15 AV 0086 (CBZ) in front of his house, on the same day during night hours, he found that his motorcycle was missing- On

29.05.2018 at 09:30 hours, he lodged a report with the Police, pursuant to which FIR/Crime No85 of 2018 was registered against the accused No 1 and the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence under Section 379 of 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 lPC. 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 4't I of IPC' 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- accused Nos.2 to 6 preferred a Criminal Appeal before the 3 learned appellate Court. The said appeal r ras dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence re( orded by the learned trial Court

06. Aggrieved by the said Judgment 1 assed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal llevision Case is preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 t: 6.

07. Learned counsel for the petition,: s contended that the prosecution has failed to establish he essential ingredients to attract the offence punishable r- nder Section 41'l of lPC. lt is submitted that the said mc torcycle was recovered from the bushes behind District Vledical and Health Office at Warangal but where the petitro rers have no right to access, which is part and parcel of Dlv &HO Office. The learned trial Court having held that the o [ence under Section 379 of IPC was not proved but erred r convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 411 of lpC basing on the alleged recovery from a place where the petitioners have no right to access. The requirec ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 411 of pC are not made out against the petitioners-accused t,l ts.2 to 6 \ 4 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 materral 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 i.e. PWI to PW3, and got marked 5 Exs.P1 to P5 PW1 is the complainant; PW2 is th: mediator; and PW3 is the lnvestigating Officer 11 As seen from the record, PW1-the c< mplainant, deposed that on 24.05.2018 at about 19:00 hours,, he parked his motorcycle in front of his house and, on tlr, r following morning, found it missing. He then lodged a corr plaint with the Police alleging that some unknown persons rad stolen his two-wheeler PW1 was not subjected O CTOSS. examination Lrkewise, the evidence of PW2 disr loses that while he was travelling in a vehicle, the Police sto6 ced it and showed him the accused Nos.'l to 6 along ir'ith some motorcycles, for identification. PW3, the lnvestigati rg Officer, deposed regarding the steps taken during the irr estigation and admitted that there was a delay of three to frt rr days in lodging the report

12. Thrs Court has considered the submissilns made on either side and perused the available reco d. lt is apparent on the face of the record that the learned rial Court as well as the appellate Court by way of concurrer I findirrgs acquitted the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 for trr: offence 6 under Section 379 of lPC. Further, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of IPC

13. ln 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 propefty in question ls slo/en propefty, (ii) The accused received or retained such property; and (iit) The accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the propefty was sto/en.

14. After a careful analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that PW1-the 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, although PW1 was not subjected to cross- examination, his testimony does not disclose any fact indicating possession, custody, or control of the stolen 7 1 vehicle by the petitioners PW2-the mediator, leposed that while he was travelling in a vehicle, the Police ; opped it and showed him accused Nos.1 to 6 along nith certain motorcycles for identification However, PW2 lid not state that the recovery was made from the petitioner;, or that he saw them in possession of the stolen mc,l trcycle. His evidence, at best, establishes that the pet t oners were shown along with some motorcycles by the Fr lice; it does not prove conscious possession. PW3-the nvestigating Officer, admitted that there was a delay of three to four days in lodging the complaint. There is no evidence c show that the petitioners had any access to, or exclusive ,:ontrol over, the place from which the motorcycles W€T ] allegedly recovered. ln the absence of proof of both po:;;ession and knowledge, the mere recovery of stolen prol>:rty from a place not shown to be in the exclusive poss€,I sion of the petitioners cannot, by itself, establish the off rnce under Section 411 lPC. lt is well settled that possess,i tn must be conscious and exclusive to attract the penal prcr ision under Section 411 IPC and, without proof of such pos: ession and 8 knowledge, a conviction under that Section cannot be sustained ' 15. ln light of the foregoing circumstances,Jhis Court is of the considered view that the prosecution case ,rff"o- from material contradictions and that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle from the exclusive 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 411 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 02 2019 in Criminal Appeal No 251 of 2O1g passed by the learned lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. Consequently, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are acquitted for the offence under Sectron 41 ,l of lpC -7 9 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous ap rlications, if any, shall stand closed 'o';iFSWt:EtTli[ / ,_. .\-_ /\\ //TRUE COPY'/ I \ S\CrtOt't OFFICER i -o 1 1.covd't) To,

1. 2. J, 4 The lll Additional sessions.lrrdoe at Karimnagar' c$'1-' The ll Additional Judicral t''l*"i'"t fr'f"iltt'"i" at Huz rrabad +[i:T.1ilt:';11,3;l['"'"ll"liliil31X'- ror th€ Hvderabad (OUT) a..r..^^-ra r...'Pl I - 3l: #ildii^'pnneHnKAn RAo' Advocate [oPU - 5 6. Two CD CoPies itate or reransana at ADK/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.262 of 2019 k o.J ,:,:,, \- STA J 202 t n: q r arct I -t * ALLOWING THE CRLRC t q *e fr("