Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1696
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Murugan @ Kari Murugan
Versus
State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Namakkal
CRL.A.No.804 of 2009
Decided On : 12-04-2010
For the Appellant:S. Sivakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Public Prosecutor.
The trustworthiness of witness identification and the interpretation of the appropriate section of IPC based on previous court decisions.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 394, 395, 397 - The court discussed the evidence and identified the accused under Sec.392 read with 34 of IPC instead of Sec.394 IPC. The court also reduced the sentence from 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment based on a Supreme Court decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged under Sections 394, 395 and 395 read with 397 of IPC for a robbery at a petrol bunk. The appellant and four others were found guilty under Sections 394 and 392 read with 397 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment and 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Sec.392 read with 34 of IPC instead of Sec.394 IPC and reduced the sentence from 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment based on a Supreme Court decision.
Issues: Identification of the accused, application of the appropriate section of IPC, and imposition of the correct sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the trustworthiness of the witnesses' identification of the accused in court, and the interpretation of the appropriate section of IPC based on previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant under Sec.394 of IPC were set aside, and instead, he was convicted under Sec.392 read with 34 of IPC and directed to suffer six years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment imposed by the trial Court was also reduced to 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine amounts imposed by the trial Court were upheld.
M. Chockalingam, J.
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Namakkal, made in S.C.No.128 of 2002 whereby the appellant, who was shown as A-4, along with four other accused stood charged under Sections 394, 395 and 395 read with 397 of IPC, tried, found guilty under Sections 394 and 392 read with 397 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence and 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence respectively.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 were employed in a petrol bunk belonging to Petrol Bunk Lorry and Trailer Owners and Drivers Association at Keerampur Village. On the date of occurrence i.e., 29.11.2000, P.Ws.1 and 4 were working as cashiers while P.W.3 was filling the tanker lorries with diesel. On 28.11.2000, the cash collected for the day was taken by P.W.6, the Supervisor. After 7.00 P.M., a sum of Rs.1,21,352/- was collected towards the sale of petrol and diesel, and it was kept in the bureau, and a sum of Rs.9000/- was kept in a drawer in the table. At about 4.30 A.M., when P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and two others were sitting outside and chatting, A-1 to A-4 armed with knives entered the petrol bunk, and A-1 threatened the witnesses to hand over the amount. P.W.1 handed over Rs.9000/- which was kept in the drawer. When A-1 asked for the keys of the bureau, P.W.1 told that he has no keys with him. Thereafter, A-1 to A-4 pushed the witnesses inside the room, broke open the bureau and took away Rs.1,21,352/- from the bureau. When P.W.1 raised alarm, A-1 cut him, and when it was warded off, P.W.1 suffered an injury. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence with the cash robbed.
(b) Immediately, P.W.1 informed the Office Bearers of the Association over phone. They reached the petrol bunk. Then P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police of that Circle. On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No.197 of 2000 under Sec.394 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P6, was despatched to the Court. Then, P.W.1 was sent to the Hospital for getting treatment. P.W.5 the Doctor, examined him and issued Ex.P4, the wound certificate. P.W.11 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P5, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P7. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
(c) P.W.10, the Inspector of Palayamkottai Police Station, who was investigating Crime No.98 of 2001 registered at Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, was standing with his police party near Ram Theatre and checking all the vehicles near a check post. He saw an ambassador car bearing Registration No.TTS-5052 coming towards the check post followed by a TVS-Suzuki with Registration No.TN-37-W-3486. Two persons were travelling in the said TVS Suzuki, and all the five accused were travelling in the car. P.W.10 checked the car, and at that time, A-1 was found having a country made pistol in his waist and was also found in possession of three cartridges. A2 was carrying a country made pistol and two cartridges. The Officer also found knives and six country made bombs in the vehicle. Thereafter, an information was given to P.W.11 about the arrest of A-1 to A-5.
(d) P.W.11 on receipt of the said information, proceeded to Perumalpuram Police Station where P.W.1 identified A-1 to A-4. When A-1 was questioned, he gave a statement, and in pursuance of the same, he pointed P.W.9 whose statement was recorded. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also relied on 7 exhibits and 1 material object. On completion of
