IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
R.Marimuthu @ Samikannu - Petitioners
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Velliyani Police Station, Karur District. - Respondent
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.201 of 2017
Decided On : 23-02-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 379 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 313(1)(b), 401, 397 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Snatched Away Gold Thali Chain - Case of prosecution is that defacto complainant, who was then working as a teacher in a School, situated at Manjanayakkanpatti, as usual after getting down from Bus, was proceeding towards her School, petitioners came in a Bajaj two wheeler bearing registration and snatched away her gold thali chain - whether the theory of arrest, confession and recovery canvassed by the prosecution is genuine or not - whether P.W.7 had really visited the occurrence place at 03.00 pm – Held, Courts of law shall not be carried away by mere sentimentalities or conjunctures or surmises or status of accused as habitual offender, but bound to proceed on basis of legal evidence alone - In case on hand, on perusing entire evidence, this Court is of view that trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not appreciated evidence adduced in above case in its proper legal perspective and misread evidence - Moreover, this Court is constrained to hold that both Courts have only adopted erroneous approach, misconception of law and mis-appreciation of evidence and that therefore, they have become vitiated - Hence, this Court decides that prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, this revision case is liable to be allowed - Case allowed.
ORDER :
The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.3 of 2017, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Mahalir Court), Karur in C.C.No.179 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, dated 02.01.2017
2. The revisions petitioners are the accused. The criminal revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the judgments of the trial Court and the Appellate Court, convicting the petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2009, at about 09.15. am, the defacto complainant, Thilagavathy, who was then working as a teacher in a School, situated at Manjanayakkanpatti, as usual after getting down from the Bus, was proceeding towards her School, the petitioners came in a Bajaj two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 45 F 4442 and snatched away her gold thali chain weighing about 5 ½ sovereigns and that thereby, the petitioners had committed the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.
4. P.W.1/complainant visited Velliyanai Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.7 / Sub Inspector of Police, received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2009, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and prepared the First Investigation Report under Ex.P.6. P.W.7 visited the occurrence place at about 03.00.pm on that date itself and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.7 and rough sketch under Ex.P.8 in the presence of P.W.6 / Ramasamy and one Arunachalasundaram and thereafter, in the presence of the said witnesses at about 04.00.pm, she recovered gold beads, coin and amulet (thayathu) along with yellow coloured thali thread from the occurrence place through seizure mahazar under Ex.P.4.
5. On 27.04.2009 at about 08.30.am, when P.W.5, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Pasupathipalayam Police Station, was on patrol duty, they have intercepted a two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 45 F 4442 on suspicion and enquired the petitioners/accused and at that time, the first petitioner has given a voluntary confession statement and the same was recorded by P.W.5 under Ex.P.2 in the presence of the witnesses Balamurugan and Muniraj. As per the confession statement given by the first petitioner, when he was taken to the Kumaran Jewellery, he identified P.W.4/owner of the jewellery and P.W.4 had handed over a gold thali chain alleged to have been sold by the petitioners and the same was recovered by P.W.5 through seizure mahazar under Ex.P.3. Since the property was relating to the case registered in Velliyanai Police Station, P.W.5 had handed over the same along with seizure mahazar through Velliyanai Police Station. In the meanwhile, P.W.7 has recorded the statement of the witnesses. After coming to know about the arrest and the recovery of the gold chain, since the petitioners were in judicial custody, she has arrested them formally and on production before the jurisdictional Magistrate, they were remanded to judicial custody sofar as the Velliayanai Police Station case is concerned.
6. P.W.7 sent the M.O.1 gold thali chain through Form-95 under Ex.P.9 and the M.O.2 gold thali chain, beads(gundu) and coins and M.O.3 piece of thali thread through Form-95 under Ex.P.10. After completing the investigation, she has filed the final report against the petitioners/accused on 30.04.2009.
7. The learned Judicial Magistrate had taken the case on file in C.C.No.179 of 2010 and furnished the copies of the records under Section 207 Cr.P.C, on free of costs. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate has framed the necessary charge under Section 379 of IPC against the petitioners and when they were questioned, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.