IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.No.2852 of 2026 S.Rajkumar (ocha) ...Petitioner -Vs-

The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur district.

Crime No.45 of 2024 ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 42 r/w. 424 of BNSS, 2023 praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur district in Crl.A.No.321 of 2024 dated 08.07.2025 by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.37 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District and allow this revision and acquit the appellant / accused No.1.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.321 of 2024 confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.37 of 2024 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Section 380 and 454 IPC and sentencing him to three years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with two others had committed theft of a gold coin from the cupboard of the house of P.W.1.; that on a complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered and on investigation, it was found that the petitioner along with two others have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The trial Court found that the petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offences on the basis of the fingerprint that was lifted from the scene of occurrence based on the expert’s opinion which stated that the finger print lifted from the scene of occurrence matches with the fingerprint of the petitioner. The trial Court acquitted the remaining two accused. The appellate court confirmed the finding of guilt by the trial Court and the sentence imposed on the petitioner.

4. Mr.P.Pugalenthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that no witnesses have been examined to prove the involvement of the petitioner in this case; that the petitioner is sought to be convicted only on the basis of the expert’s opinion which cannot be the sole basis for conviction and that the impugned judgment is perverse and is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the petitioner is in the custody for one year and 11 months.

5. Mr.R.Vinothraja, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), would submit that in a case of this nature, it would not be possible to adduce direct evidence and the petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity in the opinion of the expert who had found that the fingerprint lifted from the house of the victim matched with the fingerprint of the petitioner and considering the fact that the concurrent findings of the facts cannot be said to be perverse, he sought for dismissal of the revision.

6. As stated above, the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W.1, the victim, had stated that her cupboard in the house was broken open and a gold coin was stolen. On her compliant, investigation was conducted by P.W.6. During the course of investigation the fingerprints that were available in the place of occurrence and in the cupboard were lifted. P.W.4, the expert who had examined the finger print of the petitioner and the fingerprint that was lifted from the occurrence, had deposed that both the fingerprints matched. It is seen that the expert has not been discredited by the defense. The trial Court has also found that the fingerprint of the petitioner were already available in the police department as the petitioner was involved in several other cases.

7. Considering all these facts and since this Court is of the view that the finding of the Courts below are not perverse, this Court is inclined to co