Kakarlamudi Praveen Kumar , Praveen v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2133 OF 2017 ORDER:

The petitioners have been questioning the concurrent findings recorded by the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku (FAC. I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku) in Calendar Case No.307 of 2012 in his judgment dated 10.3.2016 whereby and whereunder, having believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, more particularly, P.Ws.1 and 2, convicted the petitioners under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 379 of I.P.C. and inflicted sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months while acquitting them for the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. 2.

The said finding recorded and sentence of imprisonment when challenged before the learned IV-Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Tanuku, by his judgment dated 19.7.2017 confirmed the same having been convinced with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 on reappraisal.

3.

Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by them.

4.

Turning to the facts, P.W.1 when parked his Hero Honda Passion Plus Motorcycle on 30.05.2012 at Sri Ram Hotel Y- Junction in Tetali Village at about 9.00 p.m. to have tiffin and went inside hotel

and having had his tiffin, when he came out he found that his motorcycle was missing. He, therefore, lodged a compliant with the Station House Officer concerned and after due investigation chargesheet was filed against the petitioners herein, having recovered "Hero Honda Passion Plus" Motorcycle from their possession at their instance in consequence of confession said to have been made by them.

5.

It is needless once again to probe into whether the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below and findings recorded thereon is not in accordance with evidentiary rule for the reason even looked at the findings recorded and the reasons in arriving at such findings, absolutely there is no patent illegality warranting interference in Criminal Revision Case.

6.

It is also needless to mention that in a Revision Case unless the petitioners are successful in showing that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from utter perversity, no interference is warranted. When the evidence of P.W.2 is clinching to prove recovery from the possession of the petitioners/accused, and P.W.1 identifying M.O.1 as belonging to him and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1and 2 to view that P.W.1 had an occasion to foist a false case with ill will or false motive implicating the petitioners or for that matter plant M.O.1., the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be faulted.

7.

Therefore, there is no merit in the present Revision and, accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence inflicted.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. __________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J Dt. 30.10.2017 gbs