##PAGE1##

Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.R.C. No. 336 of 2023

Siva @ Sivakumar ..Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. By

Inspector of Police,

Erode North,

In crime No. 79/2008,

Erode District. ..Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C.

to set aside the judgment dated 27.01.2020 made in C.A. No. 236 of 2018 by

the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode confirming the judgment

dated 29.06.2018 passed in S.C. No. 69 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions

Court, Erode.

For Petitioner :: Mr.V. Parthiban

For Respondent :: Mr.R.VinothRaja

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

Page No.1 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 05:36:22 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2023

The revision challenges the judgment of conviction imposed on the

petitioner by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 69 of 2008 for the offences under

Sections 341, 395 r/w 397 and 450 IPC and sentencing him to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under

Section 341IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years together with

a fine of Rs. 1000/- carrying a default sentence for the offence under Section

395 r/w 397 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with

a fine of Rs. 500/- carrying a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a

period of one month for the offence under Section 450 IPC. This was

confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.

236 of 2018.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.01.2008, at about

2.30p.m., at the house of P.W.1, the petitioner along with seven other

accused came in motorcycles and committed dacoity of 19.75 sovereigns of

gold jewels kept under a secret drawer of wooden cot in the bedroom of the

house; that A1 to A3 threatened the witnesses of dire consequences; that

A1/petitioner herein was armed with a kitchen knife ; that the victim’s

Page No.2 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 05:36:22 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2023

mouth was gagged with a cloth and thus, the petitioner and others

committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 14

and marked exhibits P1 to P36 besides marking M.O.s 1 to 22. On the side

of the defence, two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were

marked.

4. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,

found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as

aforesaid. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence

imposed by the Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that P.W.1

cannot be believed since it is found in the evidence of the Investigating

Officer that she could not identify or describe the features of the petitioner;

that the identification parade conducted a month after the occurrence cannot

be the basis to believe the version of P.W.1; that the recovery from the

Page No.3 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 05:36:22 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2023

petitioner also cannot be believed and that the judgments of the Courts

below are therefore liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would further

submit that in any case, the prosecution has not established the offence

under Section 397 IPC, as there is nothing on record to show that the

petitioner had used a deadly weapon, which is a necessary ingredient to

attract under Section 397 IPC. The learned counsel relied upon the following

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

i. Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration [1975 AIR SC 905]

ii. Raja Vs. The State [1986 CriLJ 285]

iii. Prakash and Kalidas @ Kaliappan Vs. State

[Crl.A.No.1452 of 2025 dated 09.03.2011]

iv. Kumar @ Mayakumar Vs. State by the Inspector of Police,

Palladam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

[Crl. A.No. 241 of 2011 dated 10.12.2018]

v. Senthilkumar @ Kundu Senthil Vs. State

[2023 (1) LW (Crl.) 626]

vi. Balik Ram Vs. State [1983 (2) CLR 692]

v