SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Venkatachalam @ Sakthi - Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.94 of 2011 & Cr.No.203 of 2008
Decided On : 06-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Roshan Atiq
For the Respondent:Ms. S.Thankira, Government Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 450, 392, 394, 457, 384, 323 and 447 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 222 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8 and 114 - Committed A Robbery Of Cash - Case of prosecution is that when de facto complainant pw-1 was in her house accused committed trespass by entering into house of pw-1 and committed a robbery of cash and when same was resisted by pw-1 voluntarily caused simple injuries - On a complaint given by pw-1 an fir was registered by respondent police for an offence - Petitioner is well known to pw-1 and he is her neighbour - Pw-1 is living alone and she was working at mill - She returned back from work when she was sleeping in a cot near door entrance accused entered house of pw-1 and demanded money and starting pressing her neck - Pw-1 requested accused not to harm her and voluntarily handed over a sum from her house - In course of events when she resisted attempt made by accused had bitten her in right little finger and also pushed her and left scene of occurrence by threatening her not to tell about incident to anyone – Held, Ever apply for itself and force of which rests altogether on experience and observation of course of nature constitution of human mind springs of human action and usage and habits of society - Most important rule as to presumptions is that they must be based upon facts and not upon inferences or upon other presumptions - While inferring existence of fact from another court is only applying a process of independent reasoning which mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances - It is true that accused went to house of pw-1 and it is also true that pw-1 sustained simple injuries caused by accused person - Theory of robbery has been interpolated into these facts and it sounds absolutely unnatural and artificial - In this case so called confession made by accused person and on such confession a sum being seized from accused person has not been established by prosecution - Pw-2 pw-3 and pw-4 have not supported case of prosecution insofar as confession of accused is concerned - Petition Is Partly Allowed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettypalayam, made in C.A.No.152 of 2009 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam for an offence under Section 450, 392 and 394 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.10.2008 at about 12.30 a.m when the de facto complainant [PW-1] was in her house, the accused committed trespass by entering into the house of PW-1 and committed a robbery of cash of Rs.4,900/- [Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only] and when the same was resisted by PW-1, voluntarily caused simple injuries. On a complaint given by PW-1, an FIR was registered by the respondent Police in Cr.No.203 of 2008 on 02.10.2008 at about 4.30 a.m for an offence under Section 457 and 384 IPC.

3. The petitioner is well known to PW-1 and he is her neighbour. PW-1 is living alone and she was working at Amarjothi Mill. On 01.10.2008, she returned back from work at around 11.00 p.m. At about 12.30 a.m. when she was sleeping in a Cot near the door entrance, the accused entered the house of PW-1 and demanded money and starting pressing her neck. PW-1 requested the accused not to harm her and voluntarily handed over a sum of Rs.4,900/- [Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only] from her house. In the course of events, when she resisted the attempt made by the accused, the accused had bitten her in the right little finger and also pushed her and left the scene of occurrence by threatening her not to tell about the incident to anyone.

4.Thereafter, PW-1 accompanied by PW-2 who is her brother and PW-3 who is the nephew of PW-1, went to the Police Station and gave a complaint at around 4.00 a.m to PW-7 who was the Head Constable. PW-7 on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1, registered a FIR in Crime No.203 of 2008 for an offence under Section 457 and 384 IPC. PW-7 thereafter sent PW-1 for medical treatment and he had also forwarded the complaint and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate Court. On 02.10.2008, PW-5 who is the Doctor at Gopichettipalayam, Government Hospital gave treatment to Pw-1. Ex.P-6 which is the Accident Register reveals that PW-1 sustained simple injuries.

5. PW-8 who is the Sub Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation, and visited the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P-4] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P-9] in the presence of witness PW-6. Thereafter, [PW-9] Inspector of Police took up the case for further investigation and he examined the witnesses. In the meantime on 02.10.2008 at about 4.15 p.m., the petitioner was arrested near Cellipalayam Bus Stop. On his confession, he voluntarily surrendered Rs.4,900/- [Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only] which he had kept in his house, in the presence of witness PW-6. The admitted portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P-11.

6. On completion of investigation, a Charge Sheet was laid for an offence under Section 450, 392 and 394 IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the Final Report and framed charges against the petitioner and made him stand for a trial for the alleged offences.

7. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-9 as witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and also MO-1 and MO-2, which are the currency notes recovered from the accused person.

8. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offence and thereby passed an order of conviction and sentence convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 450, 392 and 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each of the offence and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offence and in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

9. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, filed an appeal in C.A.No.152 of 2009. The Appellate Court on appreciation of t
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top