Crl.R.C.No.875 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C.No.875 of 2018

Thomas

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Chidambaram Town Police Station,

Chidambaram.

(Crime No.457 of 2015)

... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of

Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records in connection with the C.A.No.63 of 2017

on the file of the Second Additional District Sessions Court, at Cuddalore and

set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Additional

District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in C.A.No.63 of 2017 dated 20.06.2018

confirming the conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram in C.C.No.158 of 2015 dated 22.06.2017.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Paarthiban

For Respondent

: Mr.A.Gopinath

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.875 of 2018

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the judgment

passed in C.A.No.63 of 2017 dated 20.06.2018 on the file of the II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, thereby confirming the judgment

passed in C.C.No.158 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Chidambaram, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section

394 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2015 at about 9.00 p.m.,

the victim was sleeping by locking the door of the house from inside. However,

the accused came inside her house already. At about 12.30 a.m., he attempted to

rob her 2 ½ sovereign gold chain after attacking her. She sustained injuries on

her head. Thereafter, he snatched away her chain. Hence the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime

No.457 of 2015 for the offence under Section 394 IPC. After completion of

investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken

cognizance by the trial for the offence under Section 394 IPC.

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.875 of 2018

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 17 were examined and Exs.

P1 to 18 were marked and M.Os.1 to 3 were also produced and on the side of

the petitioner no one was examined and no document was marked as exhibits.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial found the

petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced him to

undergo three year rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.2000/- in

default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same the

petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the

sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the victim

was examined as PW2, the victim's son was examined as PW1. After discussion

with PW2, PW1 lodged a complaint. Even as per the prosecution PW2 locked

her house from inside and had slept in her house. While being so, at about

12.30 a.m., the accused went into her house and after attacking her, robbed her

chain. Further, the investigating officer completely failed to investigate in that

aspect viz., as to how the accused entered into the victims house which was

locked from inside. The version of PW2 is that she was threatened by the

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.875 of 2018

accused and attacked by the accused while snatching her chain. Further, in the

complaint PW1 did not even whisper that the accused allegedly shouted at her.

Whereas on her deposition, she deposed that he shouted at her and thus she

identified his voice who was he. In fact, even before admitting her in hospital,

she identified his voice and even then she failed to disclose the name of the

accused since he was known to all.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit