Order A.3 Thangapandia Thevar in C.C.No.505 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, is the revision-petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.248 of 1982. A-1 Kompiah in the said case is the revision-petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.272 of 1982. These revision cases have been filed against the judgment dated 26.4.1982 in C.A.No.60 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the conviction of A.1 Kompiah under section 411 , Indian Penal Code and A.3 Thangapandia Thevar under section 457 and section 380 , Indian Penal Code, but modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed on A.1 into one of rigorous imprisonment for three months, and confirming the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months imposed or A.3 Thangapandia Thevar by the trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: There is Sivan Temple at Melapattam Village. In the said temple, P.W.1 Ponnappa Bhattar is serving as an ‘archakar’. P.W.2 Muthukrishnan is his son. On 17.1.1977, during morning hours, P.W.1 was performing pooja in the temple. During evening after performing pooja in the temple P.W.2 locked the temple, came to the house and gave the keys to P.W.1. On the next day in the morning Veeramuthu Pillai who used to pluck and furnish flowers to the temple came to the house of P.W.1 and informed that the southern ‘vasal’ gave of the temple had been removed and that the lock was also found kept on the pial. P.Ws.1 and 2, and Veeramuthu Pillai went to the temple. They found that the east ‘vasal’ gate of the temple was kept open, and the lock which was locked from inside was also removed and laying there. Natarajar idol which was kept on the northern side of ‘Mani Mandapam’ on an alter, Sivagami Ambal idol and the idol consisted of ‘Seevili Nayagar and Ambal’ were also found missing. ‘Six Vadam’ silver sacred thread adorned on the idol of Thirupirandheeswarar in the sanctum sanctorum, ‘udhiratcha’ garland containing silver thread, silver sacred ash plate, brass ‘Nila Anghi’, gold ‘pottu’, as well as silver ‘Vel Ayutham’, silver sacred ash ‘pattai’, brass ‘kudam,‘brass ‘thondi’ and brass ‘chembu’ - which were kept in a steel trunk on the north-eastern corner of the temple were also found stolen. P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 statement to P.W.3 - the village Munsif of Melapattam. P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 statement to P.W.3 - the village Munsif of Melapattam. P.W.3 sent Ex.P-1 along with Ex.P-4 ‘Yadast’ to the police station through his ‘Thalayari’. P.W.7 Srinivasan, Sub Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli taluk police station registered the same as Crime No.36 of 1977 under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-8 plan of the place of occurrence. At about 3-30 p.m., he seized M.O.8 ‘Asura Devi’ idol and M.O.9 betal box which were found lying at the place of occurrence under Ex.P-9 mahazar. P.Ws.1 and 3 attested Exs.P-2 and P-9. P.W.7 was transferred to another station. On 11.7. 1979, at about 2.00 a.m., in the morning, P.W.11 Alexander Mohan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (under training) at Tirunelveli, P.W.6 Subbiah, Shanmugha Thevar and other persons belonging to police department were proceeding from Chellaperion the road proceeding to ‘Naraikinaru’. At that time they found the accused coming opposite to them. P.W.11 arrested them. P.W.11 enquired A.1. A.1 gave a voluntary confessional statement at that time, and admissible portion of which is Ex.P-6. First, when M.O.13 gunny bag kept by the accused was opened, M.O.4 ‘Seevili Nayagar’ idol and M.O.5 Natarajan idol, the hands and legs of which were broken, were found inside. P.W.11 seized them under Ex.P-5 mahazar. A.1 identified P.W.4 Perumal Achari. From P.W.4, M.Os.6 and 7 two melted metel ingots were seized by P.W.11 under Ex.P-7 mahazar. In Exs. P-5, P-6 and P-7, P.W.6 and one Shanmugha Thevar have put their signatures as attesting witnesses. On 18.1.1977 P.W.8 Natarajan, finger print expert, Palayamcottai, went to the place of occurrence and examined the finger prints that were found on M.O.8 Asuradevi idol and M.O.9 betel box. On 18.1.1977, P.W.9 Krishnan, the photographer attached to Tirunelveli District Police Department, went to the place of occurrence and took photographs of M.Os.8 and 9 from P.W.8 in order to get the enlarged finger prints available in the material objects. M.O.10 series are the photographs taken during that time. P.Ws.8 and 9 had attested the mahazar for the seizure of M.Os.8 and 9. P.W.10 Ramaiah, finger print expert, had given Ex.P-10 report wherein he had stated that the finger prints found on M.Os.8 and 9 were identical to the finger prints of A-3. M.O.10 series are the photographs taken during that time. P.Ws.8 and 9 had attested the mahazar for the seizure of M.Os.8 and 9. P.W.10 Ramaiah, finger print expert, had given Ex.P-10 report wherein he had stated that the finger prints found on M.Os.8 and 9 were identical to the finger prints of A-3. After examining the witnesses and after completing the investigation, P.W.1 2 Inspector of Police laid charge-sheet against the accused before the Court on 15.3.1980. 3. The accused denied the offence. They did not examine any witness. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, considered the evidence available on record and found A-1, Kompiah Thevar guilty under section 411 , Indian Penal Code, and A-3 Thangapandia Thevar guilty under Section 457 , Indian Penal Code and Section 380, Indian Penal Code. The other accused in the case, namely, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 were acquitted. As against the said decision of the trial Court, A-1, Kompiah and A-3 Thangapandia Thevar preferred C.A.No.60 of 1982 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. On the question whether the prosecution had proved its case against A-1 under section 411 , Indian Penal Code, and against A-3 under section 457 , Indian Penal Code and Section 380, Indian Penal Code, the lower appellate Court had also gone into the evidence and came to the same conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Only with respect to the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment imposed on A-1, the lower appellate Court reduced the same to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction of A-1 under section 411, Indian Penal Code, was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. So far as A-3 is concerned, both the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court under section 457 , Indian Penal Code and section 380, Indian Penal Code, were confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate Court, the above two criminal revision cases have been filed by A-1 and A-3. 4. Mr. I.Subramaniam, learned Counsel on behalf of A-3 Thangapandia Thevar and Mr. K.A.Panchapakesan, learned Counsel on behalf of A-1 Kompiah contended that the lower appellate Court also had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and as such the convictions of the revision-petitioners herein and the confirmation thereof by the lower appellate Court are not correct and in accordance with law. K.A.Panchapakesan, learned Counsel on behalf of A-1 Kompiah contended that the lower appellate Court also had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and as such the convictions of the revision-petitioners herein and the confirmation thereof by the lower appellate Court are not correct and in accordance with law. They further contended that the sentences imposed on the revision-petitioners are also severe and excessive. On the other hand, Mr. A.N. Rajan, learned Government Advocate, on behalf of the State, submits that the lower appellate Court had independently dismissed the evidence on record and correctly confirmed the convictions and as such there is no error in the lower appellate Court confirming the convictions. 5. The point for consideration is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are performing pooja in the Sivan temple at Melapattam village. On the night of 17.1.1977, there was theft of certain properties kept in the temple viz., M.O.4 Seevili Nayagar idol, M.O.5 Natarajar idol, Sivagami Ambal idol and some other articles. The door of the temple was also found broken. These aspects of the case are not in dispute. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case, beyond all reasonable doubt, against A-1 Kompiah under section 411 , Indian Penal Code, and against A-3 Thangapandia Thevar under sections 457 and 380, Indian penal Code. “Section 411, Indian Penal Code, read as follows: 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which extend to three years or with fine, or with both.” Section 457, Indian Penal Code, reads as follows: “457. Lurking house trespass or housebreaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.- Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence tended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.” “380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.: Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 7. The evidence of P.W.6 Subbiah and P.W.11 Alexander Mohan clearly proves that A-1 has committed the of fence under the provision of Section 411, Indian Penal Code. On 17.7.1979, in the early morning, at 2.00 a.m., on the road from Chellaperi leading to ‘Naraikinaru’, A-1 was arrested by P.W.11. In pursuance of Ex.P-6, voluntary confessional statement given by A-1, M.O.4 Seevili Nayagar idol and M.O.5, Natarajar idol were seized from A-1. On the information given by A-1, M.O.6 and M.O.7 melted metal ingots were recovered from P.W.4, Perumal Achari. P.Ws.6 and 11 deposed about the same. Ex.P-5 is the mahazar for the seizure of M.Os.4 and 6. P.W.6 who had attested the said Ex.P-5 rnahazar comprehensively states in his evidence about the seizure of M.Os.4 and 5. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 state in their evidence that M.Os.4 and 5 were kept in Sivan temple at Melapattam. Thus, we find that M.Os.4 and 5 were recovered from A-1 which were found stolen from Melapattam temple. 8. Mr. A.N.Rajan, learned Government Advocate, submits that though M.Os.4 and 5 were recovered onlyon 17,7.1979 when they had been found stolen as early as 17.1.1977, yet, the delay of about 2 1/2 years in recovering them does not in any way affect the case of the prosecution. In this regard he relies on the decision in Alisher v. State of U.P. Alisher v. State of U.P. (1974) Crl. L.J. 897: (1974) S.C.C. (Crl.) 416: (1974) 4 S.C.C. 254 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1830, for the following propositions: “The illustration (a) to Section 114, Evidence Act makes it clear that the time factor has a material bearing and the Court must keep it in view before it can drew the presumption in accordance with the illustration. The presumption can be raised if a person is found to be in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft. The presumption can be raised if a person is found to be in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft. The question as to now much period should elapse after the theft in order to rule out the presumption would depend upon the nature of the stolen article and the facts of each case. Where the article recovered from the accused was the barrel of gun No.47942 which had been carried away by the dacoits as a result of dacoity and the accused failed to furnish satisfactory explanation for his possession of the barrel, it cannot be said that the accused acquired the possession of the barrel innocently. The barrel bore the number of the gun. Such a barrel of a gun does not normally change many hands. The nature of the article in question is such that there was bound to arise suspicion in the mind of the person to whom the article was handed over. Looking to the peculiar nature of the stolen article recovered from the accused a presumption can be drawn against him in accordance with illustration even after the expiry of a period of eight or nine months from the date of a dacoity and the accused is liable to be convicted under section 411, Penal Code.” In the present case, the articles recovered from A-1 were M.O.4 Seevili Nayagar idol and M.O.5 Natarajar idol which had been found missing from the premises of the Sivan temple at Melapattam village on 17.1.1977. The nature of the stolen properties in question is such that they cannot be found in any other place than the temple from which they were committed theft of. 9. No satisfactory explanation had been furnished by A-1 for his possession, of the idols. It cannot in my view be said that A-1 acquired the possession of M.Os.4 land 5 innocently. Looking to the peculiar nature of the stolen article recovered from A-1, we see no cogent ground to interfere with the view of both the Courts below, that a presumption can be drove against A-1 in accordance with illustration (a) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, after the expiry of the period of about 2 1/2 years from the date of theft. I would accordingly maintain the conviction of A-1 one of the revision-petitioners herein. 10. It is represented on behalf of A-1 by Mr. I would accordingly maintain the conviction of A-1 one of the revision-petitioners herein. 10. It is represented on behalf of A-1 by Mr. K.A.Panchapakesan, the learned Counsel, that A-1 is aged about 73 years and as such the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment imposed on him under section 411, Indian Penal Code, by the lower appellate Court can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. I am unable to further reduce the said sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment under section 411, Indian Penal Code, imposed by the lower appellate Court since the lower appellate Court itself had taken a very lenient view on the basis of the age and reduced the rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed by the trial Court to rigorous imprisonment of three months. In the interest of justice, the said sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court on A-1 cannot be. reduced further. So, I also confirm the sentence imposed one A-1 Kompiah (one of the revision petitioners herein) imposed by the lower appellate Court. 11. A careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8, 9 and 10 clearly shows that A-3 Thangapandia Thevar and committed the offence under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. On 18.1.1977, during evening hours, at the place of occurrence M.O.8 Asuradevi idol and M.O.9 bettel box were seized by P.W.7 Srinivasan under Ex.P-8 mahazar. P.Ws.8 and 9 have attested the said mahazar. P.W.8 finger print expert has specifically stated in his evidence that the finger prints were found on M.Os.8 and 9. P.W.9 had taken photographs of the finger prints found on M.Os.8 and 9, and they were enlarged by P.W.8. M.O.10 series are the photographs. P.W.10 specifically states that the finger prints that were found on M.Os.8 and 9 were identical with the finger print of A-3. Thus we find from the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, that A-3 lad forcibly entered into the premises of Sivan temple at Melapattam and committed theft of M.Os.4 and 5 idols. 12. The opinion offered by P.W.10 assumes much importance in this case. Thus we find from the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, that A-3 lad forcibly entered into the premises of Sivan temple at Melapattam and committed theft of M.Os.4 and 5 idols. 12. The opinion offered by P.W.10 assumes much importance in this case. He had given a definite opinion that on comparison of the finger prints that were available on M.Os.4 and 5 with that of the finger print of A-3, he could find that they were identical; The finger prints of A-3 were found identical with the finger prints that were found on M.Os.4 and 5 idols as per the opinion of the expert. The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. Thus we find that the prosecution has proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, its case against A-3 Thangapandia Thevar under sections 457 and 330, Indian Penal Code. As such, the confirmation of both the conviction and the sentence imposed on A-3 by the trial Court and in turn confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is correct. The sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment imposed on A-3 Thangapandia Thevar under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, cannot be said to be either excessive or severe. 13. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence both the Criminal Revision cases are dismissed. B.S. ----- Crl. Revisions dismissed.