1 2026:CGHC:5295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 379 of 2012 1 - Indrajeet Singh @ Kaku Aged About 18 Years Nil ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Though Distt. Magistrate Durg CG ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 30/01/2026 The present criminal revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 149/2011 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. 464/2011 2 whereby the applicant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant, feeling aggrieved by concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court seeking reversal of conviction and sentence. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that complainant Chandra Bhushan Mishra lodged a report alleging that a truck bearing registration No. CG-07C-5671, owned and registered in the name of his wife Rajni Devi, was being driven by driver Shesh Nag. On the night of 10.12.2010, the vehicle was parked near ACC plant after completion of daily work. When the driver returned the next morning, the truck along with relevant papers was found missing. On the basis of the report, a case was registered at Police Station Jamul and investigation commenced. During investigation, the police traced the vehicle and discovered that its registration number had been changed. Upon inquiry and search proceedings, the vehicle was recovered and seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation revealed that after theft, the original number plate of the truck had been replaced with another number in order to conceal the identity of the stolen vehicle and to enable its continued operation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and another co-accused. 4. The learned trial Court after trial recorded that the theft of the truck was duly proved, vehicle was recovered from the possession of 3 the applicant, registration number of the vehicle was changed and the applicant failed to provide satisfactory explanation regarding possession. Accordingly, the charges were framed under Sections 379 and 420/34 IPC against the applicant whereas the co-accused Subhash Singh was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. 5. The applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court and re- appreciated the evidence and held seizure of stolen article from the possession of the applicant and alteration of number plate were proved. The appellant court found no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were affirmed. The prosecution examined witnesses including the complainant, driver, seizure witnesses and investigating officer, and proved seizure memos and other documentary evidence. 6. The applicant preferred criminal appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed findings of the trial Court, holding that recovery of stolen property from possession of the applicant and alteration of number plate were proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conviction is based on suspicion rather than legal proof. It is argued that there is no direct evidence to show that the applicant committed theft and mere recovery is insufficient to sustain conviction. It is also argued that possession of the vehicle was not exclusive and the applicant had no 4 knowledge regarding alleged change of number plate. It is further contended that the courts below failed to consider defence evidence properly and therefore the conviction deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned State counsel supports the impugned judgments and submits that both the courts have recorded concurrent findings based on cogent evidence. It is argued that the vehicle was seized from the applicant and alteration of number plate stands proved, thereby establishing dishonest intention and involvement of the applicant. It is submitted that revisional interference is unwarranted. 9. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited. This Court does not act as a second appellate court to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, illegal or result in miscarriage of justice. Interference is permissible only where there is patent illegality, procedural irregularity, or glaring perversity in appreciation of evidence. 10. Upon careful examination of the entire record and judgments of courts below, it emerges that the fact of theft of the truck stands proved and is not in serious dispute. 11. The crucial circumstance against the applicant is recovery of the stolen vehicle from his possession. Seizure witnesses and investigating officer have consistently supported the prosecution case. Nothing substantial has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The evidence further reveals that the original registration number of the vehicle had been replaced, which clearly demonstrates deliberate effort to conceal identity of the stolen property. Such 5 alteration cannot occur accidentally and necessarily implies conscious involvement of persons in possession of the vehicle. 12. The applicant failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding possession of the stolen vehicle. Law is well settled that possession of recently stolen property, when unexplained, constitutes strong incriminating evidence against the possessor. Both the courts have extensively discussed evidence and rightly concluded involvement of the applicant. The findings recorded are based on evidence and cannot be termed perverse or unreasonable. The defence arguments essentially seek re-appreciation of evidence which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction, particularly when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded. 13. Having examined the record and judgments of both courts below, this Court finds that the theft of the vehicle stands established. The most significant circumstance is recovery of the stolen truck from possession of the applicant. Evidence of seizure witnesses and investigating officer remains intact and trustworthy. Further, evidence also establishes that the original registration number of the vehicle had been replaced. Such alteration of identification mark is not accidental and indicates conscious attempt to conceal stolen property. 14. The applicant has not offered any plausible explanation regarding possession of the stolen vehicle. Under settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, possession of recently stolen property without explanation provides strong incriminating circumstance against the 6 possessor. 15. The appellate court has already taken into account that the applicant had remained in custody for a considerable period and modified the sentence accordingly, restricting imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining fine amount. Considering nature of offence and circumstances recorded, sentence cannot be termed disproportionate. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts. The prosecution has successfully proved that the stolen vehicle was seized from possession of the applicant and that the number plate had been changed, thereby establishing involvement of the applicant. Therefore, no ground is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 17. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is maintained. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Since the sentence stands confined to period already undergone, no further custody is required. However, fine amount, if unpaid, shall be recovered in accordance with law. Record of the courts be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.05 10:50:13 +0530