Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15884
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Gomathi – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam, West Police Station, Crime No.1197 of 2021 – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD). Nos.448 and 504 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Mahendrapathy for Mr.S.Sankar, Mr.S.Sekar for Mr.P.Manimaran
For the Respondents:Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
The conviction under Section 379 IPC was upheld based on credible evidence and confessions, affirming the maximum sentence due to the habitual nature of the offenses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 379 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 r/w 401 - Conviction and sentence under theft charges - Accused were found guilty of theft from a bus, with evidence of previous offenses and modus operandi established - The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on testimonies and confessions - Courts below confirmed the conviction and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. (Paras 10, 17, 19)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Admissibility of confessions leading to discovery - The court upheld the admissibility of confessions leading to material recovery, establishing involvement in the crime. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused were involved in a theft of valuables from a passenger's bag on a bus, leading to their arrest and conviction based on confessions and witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The courts confirmed the conviction and maximum sentence, citing the habitual nature of the offenses and the clarity of evidence presented.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the conviction and the appropriateness of the maximum sentence for theft under Section 379 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution's evidence was credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction, and previous convictions justified the maximum sentence imposed.
Result: All revisions are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of theft through witness testimony and confession. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding lack of evidence and recovery. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence credibility and procedural adherence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal correctness of conviction and sentence. (Para 17) |
| 5. final dismissal of revisions and confirmation of sentence. (Para 19 , 20) |
C O M M O N O R D E R
Since these Criminal Revision Cases are arising out of the same crime, these cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this common order.
2.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 56 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District have filed this criminal revision challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them. And the same also confirmed in Crl.A.No. 240 of 2023 and Crl.A.No. 42 of 2024 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
448/2024 A-2
Gomathi
56/ 2023
240/ 2023
U/s.379 IPC
Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of two months simple imprisonment.
2
504/2024 A-1
Meenakshi
56/ 2023
42/ 2024
U/s.379 of
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 26.08.2021 at 03.10 p.m., while boarding Mayiladuthurai Bus, the defacto complainant's bag containing 5 sovereign Thali chain, bracelet and gold hook was missing. She gave the complaint under Ex.P1 to the respondent police and the respondent police registered the case on 03.09.2021. The PW7, after registration of FIR under Ex.P7, went to the occurrence place and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P8 and rough sketch Ex.P9 in the presence of PW3 and PW4. PW7 on 18.12.2022 at about 06.30 p.m. enquired about the queer company of A1 and A2 in the presence of PW5 and PW8 and they confessed stating that they were involved in number of theft cases. Thereafter, they were arrested and confined in prison. PW9 inspector of police took the police custody of the said petitioners on 01.01.2023 and confession was recorded and they disclosed about the material objects gold chain, bracelet and hook and the same were recovered under Ex.P14 in the presence of PW5 and PW8. Thereafter, the investigating officer PW9 completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kumbakonam and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 56 of 2023 under section 379 of I.P.C. against A1 and A2. Thereafter the learned judicial magistrate 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.
4. The prosecution to prove the case examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to P14. The Learned Trial Judge question the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C . by putting the incriminating material available against them in the prosecution evidence and documents. They denied as false. On the side of the accused, neither witness was examined nor documents was marked.
5. The Learned Trial judge after considering the evidence and documents and the answer given by the accused during the 313 questioning convicted the accused under section 379 of I.P.C. The Learned Trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused are habitual offenders and have previous case and also were convicted for similar occurrence in C.C.No. 55 of 2023 and imposed the maximum punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of two months simple imprisonment. Challenging the same accused No.1 filed the appeal No. 42 of 2024 and accused No. 2 filed the appeal in Crl.A.No. 240 of 2023 on the file of the principal sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The appellate C
