The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused's knowledge and intention to commit the alleged offence, and the importance of clear evidence and proper investigation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Chennai dated 02.01.2018.)

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence made by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai dated 02.01.2018 in S.C.No.192 of 2015 in P.R.C.No.37 of 2015 on the file of XXIII M.M., Saidapet, Chennai in respect of A3 and A4 who are the appellants herein for the offence punishable under Section 411 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

2. In fact, it is a case of murder, with regard to the said offence under Section 302 I.P.C., charge had been framed only against 1st and 2nd accused. Insofar as the 3rd, 4th and 5th accused are concerned, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 411 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The trial Court, in the judgment impugned, convicted and sentenced A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 450, 302 and 380 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

3. In respect of A3 and A4, the trial Court convicted these two appellants under Section 411 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Insofar as A5 is concerned, he has been found not guilty for the offence under Section 411 r/w. 34 I.P.C. accordingly, he has been acquitted.

4. As against the conviction and sentence for A1 and A2, the learned counsel appearing for the present appellants as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that there has been no appeal.

5. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, it is filed by the A3 and A4 as against the conviction and sentence of 6 months with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 411 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

6. Heard Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. According to the prosecution, the charge made against the appellants/A3 and A4 along with A5 reads thus:

8. In order to prove the aforestated charge against the three accused viz., A3, A4 and A5, the prosecution specifically depended the evidence of P.W.17 who is the Assistant in Revenue Department who stood as a confession witness for A1, A2 and A3. If we go through the evidence recorded by P.W.17 in his chief examination, he has stated before the trial Court the following:

9. In his cross examination, the P.W.17 has stated the following:

10. This evidence has been mainly relied upon by the prosecution and the learned Judge of the trial Court has given the following discussion about the evidenciary value of the said witness:

“54. ..... The evidence available on record also proves that the 4th accused is the receiver of the stolen property and the 3rd accused is the person available in the Pawn Broker Shop of the 4th accused from whom M.O.8 was recovered. However, I do not find any evidence against the 5th accused in order to connect him to the offence u/s.411 IPC. Hence, I conclude that the prosecution has proved the charges u/s. 450, 302 and 380 r/w. 34 IPC as against the 1st and 2nd accused and the charge u/s. 411 r/w. 34 IPC against the 3rd and 4th accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the point is answered accordingly.”

11. The trial Court also discussed the evidence recorded by P.W.26 who is Investigating Officer and the relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“44. .... Hence, the evidence of P.W.26 regarding the recovery of material objects remains unchallenged as against the accused 1 & 2. P.W.26 did not speak anything about the involvement of the 4th and 5th accused in his chief examination. But, in the cross examination, he has stated that 4th and 5th accused have been impleaded in this case since 4th accused has received the stolen articles and the 5th accused has given a Receipt in the name of one Ravi. But, the alleged Receipt given by him in the name of Ravi was not produced before the Court. So, the evidence of P.W.26 regarding