Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Reka – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
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 Kumbakon
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
