J U D G M E N T

The Appellant/A2 who was found guilty of offence under Section 414 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default 6 months R.I., has preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.12.2009 at about

2.00a.m., one Thillainathan trespassed into the house of Anandhi. He broke open the almirah and robbed two pairs of studs and one ladies ring worth totally 2½ gold sovereign. When Anandhi woke up and raised alarm, the said Thillainathan attacked her with Aruval on her head and caused grievous injury. Thereafter, Thillainathan also took away the Nokia cellphone and left the house of Anandhi with stolen jewels and cellphone. Thillainathan, later entrusted the stolen properties to Rajan @ Natarajan, who is the present appellant herein.

3. Rajan @ Natarjan knowing well that they are properties stolen received them and promised Thillainathan to encash the same and share the money. Accordingly, the said Rajan@Natarajan pledged the stud with one P.Kannadasan. Sold the cellphone to one G.Manokaran.

4. The respondent police, on enquiry, took up the complaint of Malliga mother of Anandhi. On completion of investigation, final report filed against Thillainathan-A1 and Rajan @ Natarajan-A2.

5. The trial Court framed charges under Section 450, 307, 394 read with 397 I.P.C against A1-Thillainathan. The charge for offence under Section 414 of I.P.C framed against A2-Rajan @ Natarajan. After trial, both were found guilty of the offences charged. As far the Rajan@Natarajan-A2, who is the appellant herein, the trial Court below sentenced him to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months R.I.

6. The conviction and sentence was challenged by the 2nd accused-

Rajan@Natarajan, on the ground that, the recovery of gold jewels and cellphone from P.W.10 and P.W.11 not been corroborated by any independent witnesses. There is no evidence to show that, M.O.1 to M.O.5 were entrusted to the appellant herein or he, in turn pledged, sold and received half of the sale proceeds from the 1st accused. The material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5) were alleged to have been pledged by the appellant and later recovered. The prosecution has not produced receipts for pledging and therefore, the alleged recovery is highly doubtful.

7. According to the prosecution/A1 Thillainathan trespassed into the house of Anandhi (P.W.9) on 03.12.2009 and robbed M.O.1 to M.O.5. When P.W.9/Anandhi raised alarm, Thillainathan attacked her with Aruval (M.O.6) and thereafter, he entrusted (M.O.1 to M.O.5) to Rajan @ Natarajan (A2) in the case. P.W.10/P.Kannadasan had deposed that, on 05.12.2009, at about 5.30 p.m., A2 Rajan@Natarajan came along with another person to his shop and pledged a pair of stud stating that, his wife is unwell and he need money and promise to redeem the pledge later. Therefore, receiving the stud, P.W.10 gave Rs.7,000/-, A2 Rajan@Natarajan demanded further sum of Rs.1,000/- for his temple visit and additional sum of Rs.1,000/- to met out his wife medical expenses. So P.W.10, totally he gave of Rs.9,000/- for the jewels pledged and gave a receipt. Two months later, the respondent police along with Rajan@Natarajan came to his shop seized the jewels, informing that, it is involved in an attempt to murder case. The recovery seizure mahazar for this stud is marked as Ex.P.5, which is dated 09.02.2010. Swaminathan and Kaliyamoorthy are two witnesses for the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.5).

8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pointing out that the evidence of P.W.18/Devam, who is Investigating Officer, in this case submitted that, this petitioner was already detained in Central Prison, Trichy, in connection with a case registered at Mannargudi Police Station in Crime No.47/2005 only. On 16.02.2010, Rajan@Natarajan was formally arrested in this case. On 18.02.2010, got PT warrant and took A2 into police custody on 23.02.2010. On 19.02.2010, 2nd accused Rajan@N