2026:MHC:596 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No.1675 of 2023

1. Dhamu @ Praveen S/o.Kalidass, South Housing Unit, Muthusamy Colony, Selvapuram, Coimbatore.

2. Vijaya Anand S/o.Kumar, 30, Backside of VKC. Gowdown, Ration shop veedu, Selvapuram, Coimbatore.

..Petitioners/Accused Vs The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, D1, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Cr.No.201/2016.

...Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction imposed in the Judgement dated 04.08.2023 made in CA.No.537 of 2018 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore confirming the Judgment dated 19.11.2018 made in CC.No.387 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Selvakumaraswamy for R1 Mr.K.Raghunath for Mr.P.Bakiyaraj For Respondent: MR.P.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The revision challenges the Judgment dated 04.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.537 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for the offence under Section 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), by Judgment dated 19.11.2018 in C.C No.387 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore. The first petitioner was sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo 30 days of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence. The second petitioner was sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo 30 days of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2016, at about

5.30 a.m., when the de-facto complainant, P.W.1, had opened her petty shop, two persons had come near the shop and asked for cigarettes; that when she tried to take the cigarettes, the petitioners/accused snatched 1 ½ sovereign gold chain worn by the de-facto complainant on her neck and fled from the place and thus committed the aforesaid offence.

3. On a complaint given by P.W.1, de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.201 of 2016 for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC by P.W.6, Inspector of Police. P.W.7, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and filed the Final Report for the offence under Section 392 r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 9 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P9 and the gold jewel as M.O.1. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

5. The Trial Court found the accused/petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 392 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them as stated above, which was confirmed by the appellate Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no identification parade was conducted during investigation; that P.W.1 had stated in her complaint that unknown persons had committed the offence of robbery; that her identification for the first time in Court cannot be believed; that the recovery of the gold jewel cannot be believed since the witness who was examined to prove the recovery would admit that she stayed outside the house when the jewel was brought from the house of the first petitioner; and hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and for acquittal.

7. Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the prosecution has proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt; that the evidence of the investigating officer proves the said fact; and that, in any case, the jewel was recovered from the house of the first petitioner, and there is no reason to falsely implicate the petitioners; that the first-t