BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Reka - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD). Nos. 590, 506 and 546 of 2024
Decided on : 28-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379 and 109 - Criminal revision cases challenging conviction and sentence for theft - Accused convicted for stealing from passengers in public transport, with evidence of modus operandi and confessions leading to recovery of stolen money - Maximum punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine upheld by appellate court. (Paras 2, 6, 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Admissibility of confessions leading to discovery of facts - Confession of one accused admissible against co-accused when it leads to recovery and corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 12, 15)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Accused questioned on incriminating evidence - Failure to provide alternative evidence does not negate conviction. (Paras 7, 17)
Facts of the case:
The accused were involved in a theft at a bus stand, stealing a purse containing cash and valuables from a passenger. They were arrested based on suspicious behavior and confessions, leading to the recovery of stolen money.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the accused's involvement and previous criminal history.
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence imposed were legally correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the prosecution's evidence, including confessions and recovery, was sufficient to uphold the conviction, emphasizing the habitual nature of the accused's crimes.
Result: Revisions dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
ORDER :
Since these criminal revision cases are arising out of the same crime, these cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed by way of this common order.
2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No. 57 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District have filed this criminal revisions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.A.No. 241 of 2023 and Crl.A.No. 43 of 2024 and the details are as follows :-
| SL. No. | Crl.RC. (MD).No. | Rank of the accused and Name | C.C. No. | Crl.A. No. | Charges proved under sections | Punishment (Imprisonment and Fine) |
| 1 | 590/2024 | A-2 Reka | 57/2023 | 241/2023 | U/s.379 r/w 109 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months each for that offence. |
| 2 | 546/2024 | A-3 Gomathi | U/s.379 r/w 109 of IPC | |||
| 3 | 506/2024 | A-1 Meenakshi | 57/2023 | 43/2024 | U/s.379 of IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. |
3. Case of the Prosecution :
On 17.12.2022 at about 06.30 p.m., when PW1 came to Kumbakonam from Nagapattinam and she went to Venkataraman Sweet Stall in Kumbakonam bus stand and she noticed that her purse with Rs.40,000/-, key and ATM card was missing. Immediately she lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 to the respondent police. PW5 on receipt of the complaint registered the case on the same day in Crime No.997 of 2022 under section 379 of I.P.C. against unknown person. After registration of FIR under Ex.P7, PW5 went to the occurrence place and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P8 and rough sketch Ex.P9 in the presence of PW2 and PW3 at 08.40 p.m. on 17.12.2022. On 18.12.2022 PW5 and other officers were keeping tabs on the movement of the suspects relating to the above occurrence in Kumbakonam New bus stand and at that time they found strange movement of the petitioners and they disclosed fictitious residential address and thereafter they admitted that they had come from Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, they gave confession and the same was recorded and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently in their confession they also disclosed about their involvement in the similar thefts in the bus with the same modus operendi that A1 would steal the gold articles/money from the passengers and she would transfer to the A2 and A2 would pass on to A3 and then, they would divide the proceeds. They also admitted their involvement within the jurisdiction of Kumbakonam police station in similar occurrences in Crime Nos.1197 of 2021 and 999 of 2022. In the evening they were asked to come to the police station and in the police station, A1 and A2 admitted that they committed theft of amount and the amount of Rs.20,300/- was recovered in the presence of PW5. The remand report also shows the said crime numbers.
4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate granted police custody and during their custody A1 gave confession. On the basis of the confession, the involvement of the A2 and A3 also was discovered. The admitted portion of the confession was Ex.P.10. Further, recovery of Rs.30,000/- was effected in the residence place of A1 relative house situated at Chinna Salem under the recovery mahazar Ex.P.11. The said recovery was made by PW6 in the presence of PW4 and PW8. The recovery mahazars were marked as Ex.P13 and Ex.P14. Thereafter, the recovered money was identified by PW1 and investigation was completed by the investigating officer PW6 and he filed the final report on 16.02.2023. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam took it on file in C.C.No. 57 of 2023 under section 379 of I.P.C. agaisnt A1 and 379 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. against A2 and A3. Thereafter summoned the accused and served the copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C. to them and framed the necessary charges and questioned them and they pleaded not guilty and they stood for trial.
5.
The court upheld the conviction for theft based on confessions and recovery, emphasizing the admissibility of confessions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Recovery evidence alone cannot establish guilt unless corroborated by other substantive evidence; mere presumption from recovery is insufficient for conviction.
(1) Although Apex Court is bestowed with capacious powers under Article 136 of Constitution, yet, while beseeching such powers in a criminal appeal by special leave, Apex Court would by and large abs....
Mere recovery based on disclosure statements is inadequate to establish guilt; additional evidence linking recovered items to the crime is necessary.
(1) Disclosure statement – While recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be sole basis for conviction – It is not substantive evidence.(2) Presumption ....
A confession by a co-accused is inadmissible against another under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; therefore, the prosecution's failure to connect the accused with the crime led to acquittal.
Recovery alone is not sufficient to establish guilt in a case relying on circumstantial evidence.
The use of a weapon to threaten during robbery is sufficient for conviction under relevant IPC sections, supported by credible witness testimony and immediate recovery of stolen items.
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, including voluntary disclosures leading to recovery, can suffice for conviction, emphasizing the importance of reliability even when witnesses turn ho....
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.