The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical reports, and confession statements to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in judgment C.A.No.45 of 2012 dated 18.07.2013 by the District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District by dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.16 of 2011 dated 17.02.2012 by the Assistant Sessions-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and acquit the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner/A1 was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore/trial Court in S.C.No.16 of 2011, dated 17.02.2012, for offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. Similarly, A2 and A3 were convicted for offence under Section 394 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A1 and A3 preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore/lower appellate Court. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 18.07.2013 in C.A.No.45 of 2012 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.16 of 2011, dated 17.02.2012, against which the petitioner/A1 is before this Court, by way of this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Since there was no representation for the petitioner, this Court appointed Ms.D.Chandralekha as Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

3. The gist of the case is that on 14.01.2009, at about 08.30 p.m., near grave yard at Kagithapattarai, Vellore, while one Panchacharam and PW2 taking drinks, the petitioner/A1, A2 & A3 attacked them and committed theft of cellphone, wrist watch and currency notes all worth Rs.3,550/- and caused grievous injury to them. On the complaint [Ex.P1], an FIR in Crime No.24 of 2009 [Ex.P10] was registered and the injured persons were sent to medical treatment. After registration of the case, the respondent Police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P3], Rough Sketch [Ex.P12], arrested the accused, recorded their confession statements [Ex.P4], pursuant to the confession statement, recovered the Material Objects under Seizure Mahazars [Exs.P5 to P8]. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore and it was taken on file as P.R.C.No.14 of 2009. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and it was renumbered as S.C.No.16 of 2011. During trial, 12 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16 and 10 Material Objects were collected as MO1 to MO10 on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On completion of the trial, the petitioner/A1 and A2 & A3 were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:-

(i) The admitted case of PW2 is that when he was having liquor along with Panchacharam on 14.01.2009, during night hours at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner/A1, A2 and A3 alleged to have committed assault and robbery. PW2 for the first time had seen the accused and he has not identified them during investigation. When the accused appeared before the trial Court for the first time, PW2 identifed the accused as though they committed the offence, which is highly doubtful. PW2 admitted that at the time of occurrence, he and his relative Panchacharam were in a intoxicated condition due to having liquor. While being so, they cannot identify the accused who committed the offence. This fact is lost sight by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. He further submitted that the witness Panchacharam died subsequent to the occurrence for some other reason. The only witness available to the occurrence is PW2. The evidence of PW2 is highly doubtful. PW1 though stated that he wa