High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.R.C.No.43 of 2022 Karthi ... Petitioner/A2VsThe State Represented byits Inspector of Police,Anupparpalayam Police Station,Tiruppur. ... RespondentPrayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 24.11.2021 made in Crl.A.No.41 of 2020 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur confirming the judgment dated 21.10.2020 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur in C.C.No.590 of 2019, convicting the petitioner under Section 394 r/w 34 of I.P.C., ordering the petitioner to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further 9 months simple imprisonment and set aside the same.For petitioner : Mr.P.Babufor Mr.S.SelvaFor Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022ORDERThe petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.590 of 2019 was convicted by the trial Court by the judgment dated 21.10.2020 for the offences under Sections 394 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further 9 months simple imprisonment, against which, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.41 of 2020 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 24.11.2021, dismissed the appeal, against which, the present revision is filed.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A2 is a friend of A1/Krishnan and A3/Babu. The de-facto complainant and his wife PW5 are running a grocery shop, Anna Colony, Angeripalayam, Tiruppur. The petitioner and A3 used to go to the shop of the de-facto complainant to buy cigarette regularly, at that time they have noticed that de-facto complainant’s wife was wearing gold chain and studs. All the accused have no work and 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022they were in the habit of consuming liquor jointly. At that time, A1 revealed about the difficulties he is facing and sustaining himself. Thereafter A2 and A3 planned along with A1 to rob the gold chain from PW5. Pursuant to the same, on 30.07.2019, the petitioner along with other accused found PW1/de-facto complainant closing provision shop and proceedings to his house for lunch. PW5 was found in the first floor of the house drying the wet clothes and A1 climbed the Neem Tree, went to the first floor and snatched the chain, nose and ear studs of PW5. The victim/PW5 raised alarm. On hearing the same, the de-facto complainant rushed to the first floor and he also shouted. Hearing the same, PW2, who was coming on that side chased the accused/A1 and A1 was caught and beaten by the public and handed over to the police. PW5 sustained injury, thereafter she was taken to hospital. PW9 had given treatment and issued wound certificate. PW3 the neighbour of PW1 went along with PW1 to the police station and lodged a complaint. On enquiry, A1 disclosed that the robbed jewels were thrown and handed over to A2, A2 and A3 fled from the place. Thereafter A1 identified A2 and A2 produced the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022jewels, which was seized in presence of PW6 and PW7. PW8 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in this case. 3.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses examined as PW1 to PW9, Exs.P1 to P14 marked and M.O.1 and M.O.2 produced. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same, against which, the present revision.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 30.07.2019 and the admitted position of the prosecution case is that A1 alone committed robbery. A2 and A3 being friends of A1 had received robbed jewels/M.O.1 and M.O.2. In this case, PW1 and PW5 are the witnesses to the occurrence. PW5 is the victim. Both have not stated anything about the presence and availability of 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022A2 and A3 near the scene of occurrence. Likewise, PW2, the neighbour, who caught A1 along with others, not stated about the presence of A2 and A3. PW3 another neighbour speaks about A1 and taking the victim to the hospital and lodging the complaint. PW4 is the witness for observation mahazar. PW6 and PW7 are the witnesses, who implicated the petitioner. PW6 not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7 is the witness for arrest, seizure and recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the petitioner. There were contradictions between the statement of PW7 and PW8/Investigating Officer with regard to the manner of arrest and recovery. PW7 states that the petitioner was arrested at about 5.30 p.m. and recovery made. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer/PW8 evidence is that at about 3.00 p.m. the arrest and recovery has been made. Further the confession has been typed using laptop and PW7 states that in the Jeep there was a printer, using the same print out has been taken, confession and mahazar were signed in the scene of occurrence. PW8/Investigating Officer states that it was typed in the scene of occurrence but print out has been taken in the police station later. Thus, the arrest, 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022confession and recovery become highly doubtful. Both the courts below primarily convicted the petitioner on the ground that recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 has been made from the petitioner. He further submitted that A3 is also similarly placed, he was acquitted from the above case. In this case, the recovery is highly doubtful and hence, prayed for setting aside the conviction of the Courts below.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the petitioner’s contention submitting that PW1/de-facto complainant and PW3 brought A1, who was caught by PW2 and others, to the police station on 30.07.2019. PW5 is the wife of PW1, who had gone to the first floor to dry the wet clothes. A1 in this case had gone to the first floor snatched the Thali, forcibly removed the ear and nose studs, thereby causing injury to her. In the pain, she raised alarm. On hearing the noise, PW1 rushed to the first floor, A1 ran out from the house. PW1 raised alarm, PW2, who is a passerby, chased A1, and he was caught red handed by other villagers. Thereafter PW5 was taken to the hospital for treatment by PW1 and PW3. Thereafter PW1 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022and PW3 came to the police station, lodged a complaint. PW9 is the Doctor, who treated the injured PW5 and issued wound certificate. In the presence of PW4, observation mahazar prepared. PW6 and PW7 are the witnesses for arrest, recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the petitioner/A2. PW7 had clearly narrated about identification of A2 by A1, recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 from A2’s pocket. All have been recorded in the confession and seizure mahazar, properties have been produced before the Lower Court. In this case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and produced M.O.1 and M.O.2. The trial Court, on the materials and evidence produced, had rightly convicted the petitioner.6.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the admitted case of the prosecution is A1 climbed the Neem tree and entered the house of PW1, where PW5/wife of PW1 was drying wet clothes in the first floor. At that time, A1 snatched the gold chain, ear and nose studs and ran away from the scene of occurrence. PW5 and PW1 raised alarm. PW2, the passerby caught A1 after a chase. Thereafter, PW5 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022was taken to hospital by PW1 and PW3, thereafter complaint has been lodged. In this case, A1 was caught immediately after committing the robbery. None of the witnesses, namely, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 have stated anything about the presence of A2 near the scene of occurrence. The case against the petitioner/A2 is that he was in possession of M.O.1 and M.O.2, which were robbed by A1 from PW5. The case is that the jewels were handed over by A1 to A2, which is highly improbable on the above facts. In this case, PW5 admits that the accused/A2 and A3 were identified by them in the police station on 01.08.2019, i.e., two days after the occurrence. Further A2 and A3 are known persons, who used to come their shop. In such circumstances, not mentioning about the known persons any time during the occurrence or till A1 was caught, creates some doubt in the case of the prosecution. Added to it, there are contradictions in the evidence of PW7 and PW8 with regard to the manner in which confession statement recorded and seizure mahazar prepared. In view of the same, this Court finds that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.41 of 2020 dated 24.11.2021, confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur in C.C.No.590 of 2019 dated 21.10.2020 are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Sections 394 r/w 34 of I.P.C.13.08.2025rsiIndex: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking order9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.rsiTo:1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur.3.The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2022 13.08.202510/10