Judgment :- The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- 1. On 16.12.2005, between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., the accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the defacto complainant's house, situated at Narikattu Garden, Arachalur, and had stolen 6 sovereigns of gold thali chain, 2 pairs of ear-studs, 1 finger ring worth about Rs.32,000/-and cash of Rs.18,000/-. Therefore, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint before the respondent police. 2. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses had been examined and 18 documents were marked and 14 material objects were produced. 3. The accused had denied the charges and declared they are innocent. Hence, the case had been tried. 4. P.W.1. had adduced evidence stating that he is living at P.M.Poondurai, with his wife and children. On 16.12.2005, they had dinner at 8 p.m., and went to bed. At about 9 p.m., they heard some sound inside the house and after hearing the sound, they searched inside the house thoroughly. They found the almirah was broken open and found the lockers also damaged. When they searched inside the almirah, they found that a thali chain weighing 7 sovereigns, a ring weighing 1 sovereign, 2 pairs of ear-studs weighing 1 sovereign were missing. They also found cash of Rs.18,000/- missing. P.W.1 further stated that the stolen property was worth about Rs.50,000/- and since it was night hours, he did not opt to go to the police station immediately and therefore, he went to the police station on 17.12.2005, in the morning and lodged a complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. The respondent police came to the scene of occurrence and the fingerprint experts also examined the place of occurrence. The very next evening, P.W.1's mother-in-law and father-in-law came to the house, i.e., occurrence place and they reported that the 'thali gold chain' weighs only six sovereigns. Therefore, P.W.1 came to know that the weight of the missing ornaments was only 8 sovereigns, and this was reported to the police station subsequently. On 29.03.2006, the respondent police informed P.W.1 that the stolen properties were recovered and asked him to come to the police station to identify the same. P.W.1 went to the police station and identified the stolen property. 5. P.W.1 further stated that the respondent police came to the occurrence place and conducted an enquiry. On 29.03.2006, the respondent police informed P.W.1 that the stolen properties were recovered and asked him to come to the police station to identify the same. P.W.1 went to the police station and identified the stolen property. 5. P.W.1 further stated that the respondent police came to the occurrence place and conducted an enquiry. The 'Thali' chain was marked as M.O.1, the ear-studs was marked as M.O.2 and one more ear-stud was marked as M.O.3. A gold ring was marked as M.O.4. P.W.1 further stated that the P.W.2, viz., Chidambaram, P.W.4-Shanmugam, P.W.7-Chinnasamy, P.W.8-Samiatthan came to the occurrence place after hearing about the incident. 6. P.W.13-the Inspector of Police, who is attached to the Arachalur Police Station had registered the complaint, which was lodged by P.W.1, as Crime No.240 of 2005, for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. The F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P13. The complaint and F.I.R were sent to the Court. P.W.13 further stated that he had rushed to the occurrence place on 17.12.2005 at about 9.30 a.m., and he had prepared observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, P.W.5-Mohanraj and P.W.6-Somasundaram. The observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P2 and the rough sketch was marked as Ex.P14. P.W.13 further stated that he had conducted enquiry and collected statements from the witnesses. As per his enquiry, through witnesses, he came to know that 8 sovereigns gold ornaments and Rs.18,000/-cash were missing. But, as per complaint lodged by P.W.1, it had been mentioned that 11 sovereigns gold ornaments were missing. P.W.13 further stated that on 14.03.2006, at about 8.15 p.m., when he was carrying out his duty at Karur Road, the accused Sadasivam, Balu @ Balachandran, Meganathan and 9 other accused came to the place in a vehicle with deadly weapons. The P.W.13 intercepted the vehicle and interrogated them and he came to know that all the accused had planned to commit dacoity. Immediately, the accused were arrested and brought to the police station. P.W.12-Mr.Durai Bhaskar, the Inspector of Police had registered the case in Crime No.35 of 2006, for the offence under Section 399 of I.P.C. In connection with this case, witnesses, Ravichandran, the Village Administrative Officer, and Chinnapaiyyan came to the police station and had given confessional statement separately. The accused Balu @ Balachandran, Gnanasekaran and Meganathan had been enquired by the Inspector of Police and confessional statements were recorded from them. The accused Balu @ Balachandran, Gnanasekaran and Meganathan had been enquired by the Inspector of Police and confessional statements were recorded from them. The accused had disclosed the offence in Crime No.245 of 2006. As such, the stolen properties were recovered from the accused and the same was produced before the trial Court. 7. P.W.12 sent the confessional statement and the copy of the confessional statement had been received by P.W.13 and the accused were arrested on 24.06.2006. Thereafter, P.W.13 filed a petition for custody of the accused. The same was allowed by the learned Magistrate and enquiry was conducted thereafter. 8. P.W.13 further stated that he had conducted enquiry in the presence of P.W.10, Mr.Sampath, Village Administrative Officer and his subordinate Subramani and collected confessional statement from the first accused. Likewise, the other three accused also gave confessional statements which were recorded in front of the said witnesses. The confessional statement of the four accused were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. P.W.13 went to the first accused's house on 29.03.2006 at 7.00 a.m., along with witness P.W.10 and one Subramanian and also the other accused, accompanied by the police party, wherein, the first accused opened his steel bureau and handed over the "thali chain" weighing about 6 sovereigns in the presence of the said witnesses. The properties were recovered under a mahazar marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, on the basis of confessional statement given by second accused, P.W.13 rushed to the second accused's house, along with police company, wherein the second accused opened his steel box and handed over 1 pair of ear-stud in the presence of witness P.W.8, Samiatthan. Thereafter, the same party proceeded to the fourth accused's house at about 11 a.m. The fourth accused had opened his steel bureau and took a pair of ear-stud weighing about 3.810 grams, which was seized under mahazar Ex.P9. Subsequently, at 2 p.m., as per confessional statement of third accused, the police rushed to the third accused's house, which was situated at Paramathivelur, wherein the accused had opened his bureau and took a gold ring weighing about 7.790 grams, which was seized under mahazar, marked as Ex.P10. The same was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. On 12.12.2005, photographer, P.W.11 took the photographs. 9. The same was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. On 12.12.2005, photographer, P.W.11 took the photographs. 9. P.W.11 had adduced evidence stating that he is a photographer; that on 17.12.2005, he had taken photos of the occurrence place on the request of P.W.13 i.e., the Inspector of Police; that all the photocopies, along with negatives were marked as M.O.11 and Ex.P12. P.W.13 further stated that he had handed over the recovered properties along with mahazar under form 95 and produced the same before the Court. P.W.1, along with three others came to the police station and had identified the stolen properties. 10. P.W.2, Chidambaram is also living in the same village along with P.W.1. On 17.12.2005, at about 6.00 a.m., he had heard about the occurrence. P.W.2 had also adduced evidence which is corroborative with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.5, P.W.1 and P.W.3, P.W.6 had also adduced evidence which is supportive of the prosecution case. 11. After recording the evidence from the prosecution side and on perusing the exhibits and on verifying the material objects and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate had observed that all the four accused had given confessional statement and that on the basis of the confessional statement, the stolen property was recovered from the residences of the respective accused persons, in the presence of witnesses and the seized stolen properties were produced. The evidence of P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer and that of P.W.12 and that of P.W.13 were corroborative with one another and as such the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond doubt. 12. Therefore, the accused 1 to 4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 457(2) of I.P.C. (each) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 380 of I.P.C. (each). 13. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.199 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. 13. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.199 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. The learned judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and on hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor for State, opined that a comprehensive reading of the entire evidence in this case would only show that the findings of the learned Magistrate appeared to be perfectly justifiable. The evidence of the witnesses, who attested the confessional statement and the seizure mahazar and the evidence of the investigating officer alone is very important to decide the present case. He further opined that the prosecution has successfully proved their case, after recording of statements from the accused and seizure of the property from the houses of each of the accused and that this has been clearly corroborated by the evidence of the investigation officer. Therefore, the learned judge did not find any irregularity or infirmity in the said judgment and hence dismissed the appeal. 14. Against the dismissal of the said appeal, the above revision has been filed. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent had intercepted the accused persons, while they were proceeding on the Karur road and foisted a criminal case against them. The confessional statement had been collected by the Investigation Officer from the accused while they were under the custody of the respondent police. The respondent police, taking advantage of the accused being in their custody, had framed the criminal case for his own convenience. The prosecution case is that the properties were recovered from the almirahs of the accused persons respectively, but the fingerprints found on the almirahs has not been found to tally with that of the fingerprints of the accused. The learned counsel further submits that all the accused are labourers and they are breadwinners of their respective families. They are not habitual offenders. The learned counsel further submits that first accused had undergone 158 days in prison. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-as fine amount. The second accused had undergone imprisonment for 237 days in the prison. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-as fine amount and the third accused had undergone imprisonment in prison for 155 days. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- as fine amount. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-as fine amount. The second accused had undergone imprisonment for 237 days in the prison. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-as fine amount and the third accused had undergone imprisonment in prison for 155 days. Besides this, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- as fine amount. The learned counsel further submits that initially the prosecution case was filed in the year 2006. Subsequently, there is no antecedence of the accused having committing a similar offence. Now, their conduct and character are impeccable. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for lenient treatment of the accused. 16. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the stolen properties were recovered from the accused persons from their respective residence in the presence of independent witnesses. The stolen properties are valuable gold ornaments, which were identified by the defacto complainant and the same were restored to him. The learned counsel for the State further submits that the prosecution case was proved beyond doubt after producing material objects i.e., photographs with negatives. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submits that as per prosecution case, the defacto complainant had stated that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was missing. Besides this, the defacto complainant had initially stated that a quantity of 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments viz., thali chain, ear-studs and finger ring were missing. Thereafter, the defacto complainant changed his statement that only 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments were missing. There was no discussion or finding about the cash and also no clarity about the weight of gold ornaments recovered. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution. 18. On checking the prosecution case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on both sides and on scrutinizing the judgment and sentence passed in C.A.No.199 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 27.01.2009, this Court does not find any infirmity in the said judgment. The prosecution had proved the case beyond doubt. However, the three accused had already suffered imprisonment of 158 days, 237 days and 155 days respectively in prison and had also paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- each as fine. This Court views that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them and the fine paid by them are adequate punishment. The prosecution had proved the case beyond doubt. However, the three accused had already suffered imprisonment of 158 days, 237 days and 155 days respectively in prison and had also paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- each as fine. This Court views that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them and the fine paid by them are adequate punishment. Therefore, this Court waives the rest of the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused, and the accused are set at liberty. 19. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.199 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 27.01.2009, confirming the judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.272 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, dated 31.01.2008 is modified. Accordingly ordered.