JUDGMENT

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 01.09.2021 made in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai as well as the order dated 07.03.2013 made in C.C.No.4901 of 2010 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

2.The petitioner/first accused was charged and prosecuted under Sections 379 and 201 IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police, V1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai – 49.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/PW1 Deenadayalan is working in delivery section as incharge in KUN Motorcycle Pvt., Ltd., at No.33, 1st Main Road, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. He was entrusted with the possession of his company Santro Hyundai Car bearing registration No.TN-07-AL-9628 for the purpose of transporting men and accessories. On 15.05.2010 at about 9.00 p.m., the complainant Deenadayalan PW1 parked his company car with spare parts viz., 12 Watt Batteries (21 Nos), 12 Watt 7 AM Batteries (3 Nos), Two Wheeler Petrol Tank (1 No), Head lite (1 No.), Rear cover (1 No.) and Mud-cord (1 No.), in the corner of the opposite road to the Provisional Store and locked it and went to home. The next morning on 16.05.2010 at about 5.00 a.m., he found the car was missing. Then, he gave the complaint before the respondent police against the accused persons. After receiving the complaint, the respondent police has been registered a case in Crime No.442 of 2010 and after investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for offences punishable under Sections 379 IPC @ 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC which was taken on file in C.C.No.4901 of 2010.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses, marked five documents and produced eight material objects.

5.The trial Court, after trial in C.C.No.4901 of 2010, found the petitioner/A1 Karthick @ Dilli Karthick as well as A2 Logesh @

Loganathan guilty of offences punishable under Sections 379 & 201 IPC and sentenced them as follows:

“The Accused are convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.”

Thereafter, both the accused had filed Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.76 of 2013 and the appellate Court found A2 Logesh @ Loganathan was not guilty for the abovesaid offences and acquitted him from all the charges. In respect of the petitioner/A1, the appellate Court found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 379 & 201 IPC and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present criminal revision has been filed.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before the trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses, marked five documents and produced eight material objects. Among the witnesses, PW1 Deenadhayalan is the complainant and PW2 Somanathan, PW3 Sevagan are witnesses to the confession statement of the petitioner/A1 and seizer mahazer Ex.P3 and Ex.P5. Both the witnesses Somanathan and Sevagan have not deposed to connect the revision petitioner/A1 in all the crime. PW2 Somanathan, during his cross examination, deposed that he signed the confession statement and seizer mahazer at the police station. Further, another witness PW3 Sevagan also deposed that he signed a confession statement and seizer mahazer at Adaiyar. Their evidence is not enough to connect the accused with the crime.

7.Further, according to the prosecution, this petitioner/A1 got the car key from the second accused Lokesh @ Loganathan and prepared an alternative key and by using that key, the petitioner/A1 had stolen the car. Preparation of alternative key by the petitioner/A1 was not proved by the prosecution. Though seized the car key as M.O.8 but not proved where it was