The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of rebuttal evidence can support the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.07.2014, passed in CA.No.14 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the order of conviction and sentence, dated 29.01.2013, passed in SC.No.134 of 2008, by the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 30.07.2014, passed in CA.No.14 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the order of conviction and sentence, dated 29.01.2013, passed in SC.No.134 of 2008, by the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, thereby convicting and sentencing the Petitioner/A1 for each of the offences under Sections 394 and 450 of IPC to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, each, in default to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment each and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The Petitioner/A1 and A2 were charge sheeted, stating that both the Petitioner/A1 and A2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant, Kalyani and that the complainant made several demands to return the money and that on 27.08.2003 at about 18.00 hours, they went to the house of the complainant for demanding further loan from her and that when she refused to give the loan, the accused caused simple injuries to her, by assaulting her with a wooden log on her neck and mouth and robbed 12 ¾ sovereigns of gold jewels from her and thereby the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 450 of IPC.

3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.134 of 2008, by the Assistant Sessions Judge Additional Sessions Judge, Krighnagiri and necessary charges were framed. Since during the trial, A2 died, charges against him stood abated. The Petitioner/A1 had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and also marked Exs.P1 to P12 and Mos.1 and 8.

4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, DW.1 was examined.

5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the Petitioner/A1 guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above. On an appeal, the lower appellate court has confirmed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, by the impugned judgement, which is challenged in this Criminal Revision Case.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 has submitted that the Petitioner/A1 died and prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that orders may be passed on merits.

8. This court considered their contentions and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence.

9. It is seen from the records that since A2 died during the commencement of the trial, the charges against him stood abated. It is now reported that the Petitioner/A1 also died. The death of the Petitioner/A1 will not abate the Criminal Revision Case and therefore, this Court has to necessarily exercise as to whether there is any illegality or perversity in the findings of the courts below to base conviction and sentence on the Petitioner/A1.

10. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts to base conviction on the Petitioner/A1, by valid and cogent evidence, for which, a detailed scrutiny of evidence both oral and documentary is necessary and