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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
R. Subramani - Petitioner
Versus
State rep by Sub Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 204 of 2014
Decided On : 15-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Surendran.
For the Respondent:Mr. T. Shanmugarajeswaran, Government Advocate (Crl.side).

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Cheating - Appeal against conviction - Revisional Powers of High court - Petitioner / accused is a traffic police constable and he had befriended defacto complainant / Subhashini. Petitioner / accused had told her that he had lost his wife and son in an accident and in pretext of marrying her, induced her and had sexual intercourse with her and thereby she became pregnant. Further, petitioner/accused had told defacto complainant that he will get her a job as Typist in the Secretariat and received her 3 1/4 sovereign jewels and thereby cheated her and again the petitioner/accused had made a false representation to father of defacto complainant that he will get him the licence by tender for running a two wheeler and four wheeler parking at Fountain plaza, for which defacto complainant's father / PW2 had handed over his pension book to petitioner/accused and petitioner/accused got a sum of Rs.17,000/- from financier by pledging same and petitioner / accused did not get licence and did not return money thereby petitioner had cheated them and committed offence - Held, Revisional Powers of this Court u/s.397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are limited. However, this Court is entitled to revise findings of Courts below when it reaches to conclusion that finding of Courts below is perverse and when it is not based on legal evidence - Golden rules of criminal jurisprudence are that suspicion however grave cannot take place of proof and more graver offence prosecution has to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and both Courts below cannot convict accused on mere surmises and presumptions - Prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and trial Court in a case lacking legal evidence has rendered a perverse finding and appellate Court without carefully analysing evidence on record committed a grave error by confirming same. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of Courts below liable to be set aside and consequently the revision petitioner is entitled for acquittal - Criminal Revision Case allowed

ORDER :

This criminal revision has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the judgments in C.A.No.215 of 2010 dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions judge, Chennai confirming the judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.12002 of 2002 finding the petitioner / accused guilty for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. (2 counts) and convicting him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year (for each count) to run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three month.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that the petitioner / accused is a traffic police constable and he had befriended the defacto complainant / Subhashini. The petitioner / accused had told her that he had lost his wife and son in an accident and in the pretext of marrying her, induced her and had sexual intercourse with her and thereby she became pregnant. Further, the petitioner/accused had told the defacto complainant that he will get her a job as Typist in the Secretariat and received her 3 1/4 sovereign jewels and thereby cheated her and again the petitioner/accused had made a false representation to the father of the defacto complainant that he will get him the licence by tender for running a two wheeler and four wheeler parking at Fountain plaza, Egmore for which the defacto complainant's father / PW2 had handed over his pension book to the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused got a sum of Rs.17,000/- from the financier by pledging the same and the petitioner / accused did not get the licence and did not return the money thereby the petitioner had cheated them and committed the offence.

3. The complaint was given by the defacto complainant on 27.04.2001, the respondent after completion of investigation filed final report against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C (2 counts). On appearance of the petitioner / accused, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner / accused for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C (2 counts). On the side of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW15 and exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence is that P.W.1 Subhashini is the victim girl, P.W.2 Perumal is the father of the victim girl and P.W.4 Thanjaiammal is the mother of the victim girl. P.W.1 had deposed that on 19.08.2000 her mother P.W.4 was admitted in the Egmore Eye Hospital for surgery. Since her father P.W.2 had a urinary problem she was attending to her mother. The accused was working as a traffic constable at Pantheon Road Junction and that he helped her in crossing the road and assisted P.W.2 in the hospital after getting information from P.W.1. Thereafter he had introduced one Maran in the hospital. On 01.09.2000 P.W.4 was discharged and after knowing the same, the accused met them at the bus stop and P.W.4 thanked the accused for his help. Thereafter, whenever P.W.4 came for periodical check up, the accused helped her and that one day the accused had come to the house of P.W.1. He was introduced to P.W.2 by P.W.4. Thereafter the accused used come to P.W.1's house. P.W.1 had further deposed that she had studied upto B.B.A, and completed the course in typing and I.T.I. The accused had represented that he will get a typist post to P.W.1 in the Secretariat and had taken her to P.A. to Minister. Thereafter the accused had demanded Rs.1 Lakh to get a job and she had informed about the same to her parents. After discussing with each other in the family, they decided to give the amount. During September 2000 P.W.1 had paid Rs.20,000/- and within three days another sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid and further after three days another sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid. Thereafter, since no cash was available with them, they have offered to give the jewels and had told the accused that he can pledge the same.

      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