The court upheld the conviction based on sufficient evidence while modifying the sentence due to the petitioner's age and medical conditions.

ORDER

This criminal revision is filed against the judgement of the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai made in C.A.No.548 of 2018 dated 05.09.2023. By the said judgement, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned trial Judge (XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet) in CC No.9487 of 2003 dated 03.09.2018. By the said judgement, the learned trial Court had found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced him to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 8 weeks.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.12.2001, a complaint was received from the Senior Divisional Engineer, Tambaram, Southern Railway, stating that the property of the railways being Mahindra and Mahindra vehicle bearing TN 21 EZ 1136 which was parked in front of the railway station is missing. On the strength of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2002 and was being investigated. While so, on 04.02.2002, upon suspicion, when a Jeep bearing no.TN 49 W 1462 was intercepted, it was found that it contained newly coated paints and newly changed number plates. However, the registration number that is contained in both the number plates varied with the registration number written in the battery, on the tires and other parts of the Jeep. In the interior portion of the bumper in the rear side, there was also markings to the effect that the property belongs to the railways. Therefore, immediately upon suspicion, when the Jeep was detained and the 3 persons travelling in the Jeep was questioned, they are alleged to have admitted that, in conspiracy with yet another Accused No.4, one Nalina Sundaram, who was the retired Constable from the Railway Protection Force they had stolen the vehicle and changed the number plate etc and were plying the same. The confession statement was recorded and all the 3 persons namely A1 to A3 were sent to judicial custody. The person who was driving the vehicle, was the present petitioner Accused No.1 / Murugan. Thereafter, P.W.19 completed the investigation and laid a final report. The case was taken on file as C.C.No. 9487 of 2003. Upon questioning, A1, A2 and A4 denied the allegations against them, while A3 pleaded guilty and the case against him came to an end on 24.11.2003. While the trial as against A1, A2 and A4 proceeded further. Pending the trial, A4 died. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and Ex.P1 to P36 were marked. The Jeep and the other material objects were also produced as M.O.1 to M.O.4. Upon questioning about the incriminating evidence and material evidence circumstances on record, the A1 & A2 denined the same. The trial Court, thereafter considered the case of the parties and found the Accused No.1 and 2 also guilty of the offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and imposed the punishment as aforesaid. It is stated that A2 chose to undergo the sentence and thereafter, released from prison with due remission. The petitioner herein, being the first accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2018. The appellate Court, considered the evidence on record and by basing the reasoning on the witness to the confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked, confirmed the conviction and punishment agai