Ravi @ Ravikumar v. The State

Bail SlipThat the Appellant in Crl.App.592/07 accused in SC.54/2006namely Balamurugan was directed to be released on bail by the orderof this Court dated 11.12.2007 in Crl.MP.No.1/2007 inCrl.APP.592/07.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.07.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.A.Nos.490 and 592 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 20071.Ravi @ Ravikumar...Appellant in Crl.A.No.490 of 20072.T.Balamurugan...Appellant in Crl.A.No.592 of 2007Vs.The StateRep. by the Inspector of PoliceChithode Police StationChithodeErode District...Respondent in both(Cr.No.497/2005)appealsThese Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 ofCriminal Procedure Code as against the judgment of conviction andorder of sentence dated 29.01.2007 made in S.C.No.57 of 2006 by theII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode imposed against theappellants.For Appellants: Mr.B.Rajamani, (C.A.No.490/2007) Mr.K.Thilageswaran (592/2007) Mr.I.C.Vasudevan (M.P.No.1/2007)For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)J U D G M E N TThe Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.57 of 2006 on the file ofthe II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, who stoodcharged, found guilty and convicted for offences punishable underSections 450, 394 and 395 IPC have filed these two appeals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ separately. Each one of the appellant was sentenced by the trialcourt to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years andpay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment in case of default in payment of fine for each one ofthe offences punishable under Sections 450 IPC, 394 IPC and 395IPC. However, the trial court has orders that the substantivesentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.2. Crl.A.No.490/2007 is the appeal preferred by Ravikumar, thefirst accused. Crl.A.No.592/2007 is the appeal preferred byBalamurugan, the second accused. Since both the appellants werejointly tried and were convicted in one and the same sessions casein respect of one and the same crime No.497/2005 as joint offendersand since both appeals have arisen out of the same judgment of thetrial court made in S.C.No.57/2006, they are taken up together fordisposal and this court passes the following common judgment.3. Based on the complaint of P.W.1-Shanthi a case wasregistered on the file of Chitode police station in Cr.No.497/2005against two unnamed persons for an alleged act of chain snatching,punishable under Section 380 IPC. P.W.12, the then Inspector ofPolice, after conducting an investigation submitted a final report,after altering the penal provisions, alleging commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 454, 494 and 495 IPC by theappellants in these appeals/A1 and A2 and three other persons viz.Gopinath, Sekar @ Chandrasekar and Murugan (A3 to A5). Based onthe said final report, all the five persons were prosecuted for thesaid offences before the trial court. At the end of trial, thelearned trial judge acquitted A3 to A5 in respect of the chargesand convicted the appellants herein (A1 and A2) in respect of allthe three charges and sentenced them as indicated supra.Challenging the correctness and legality of conviction andsentence, the appellants herein (A1 and A2) have preferred thesecriminal appeals.4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-P.W.1-Shanthi is a resident of sengal choolai thottam,Nazianoor, Pallatthurkadu. On 06.10.2005 at about 2.30 p.m she waslying in the hall and was thus taking rest. While so, two unknownpersons entered the house through the entrance which was not lockedand snatched the gold chain from her neck. Thereafter they tookthe keys of the bureau from the table, opened the bureau and tookaway two gold chains each weighing one sovereign, a pair of earstuds (gold) weighing ½ sovereign and a ring and left the saidplace. After the said thieves left the place, P.W.1 raised analarm which attracted the neighbours, namely P.W.2-Sankar, P.W.7-Srinivasan and P.W.8-Murugan. She narrated to them what happened.Thereafter, P.W.1 along with neighbours made a search in thelocation but could not found the thieves. When the chain wassnatched from her neck, P.W.1 sustained injuries on the neck andhence she was taken to P.W.5-Dr.Rangasamy for treatment by P.W.4- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Duraisamy. The injuries were found to be simple in nature andP.W.5 advised P.W.4 to take P.W.1 to the Government hospital, asthe case was a medico-legal case. Thereafter, P.W.1 was admittedin the Government hospital, Erode where she was examined by P.W.10-Dr.Dharmaraj and admitted as an in-patient for treatment. P.W.10also sent an intimation under Ex.P24 regarding the admission ofP.W.1. Ex.P25 is the accident register prepared by P.W.10 at thetime of admission of P.W.1. After the receipt of intimation fromthe hospital, the statement of P.W.1 marked as Ex.P1 was recordedat 8.30 p.m on 06.10.2005 by the then Sub-Inspector of PoliceP.W.11-Marappan. A case was registered by him in Cr.No.497/2005for an offence under Section 380 IPC by preparing Ex.P26- firstinformation report in the printed format. The initialinvestigation was taken up by P.W.12-Loganathan, the then Inspectorof police, Chitthode. He visited the place of occurrence andprepared Ex.P2-observation mahazar and Ex.P27-rough sketch. On09.10.2005, P.W.12 arrested the appellants (A1 and A2) whileconducting regular vehicle check up and recorded the confessionstatements given by the appellants/ A1 and A2. Based on theinformation furnished by the appellants, Gopinath, Sekar @Chandrasekar and Murugan (A3 to A5) were arrested on the very sameday at Avalpoondurai bus stop. He recorded the confessionstatement of those persons also in the presence of witnesses andrecovered the stolen properties marked as M.Os.1 to 6 from theaccused persons. Thereafter an alteration report altering thepenal provision from 380 IPC to 450, 394 and 395 IPC marked asEx.P38, was prepared and sent to the court on 22.11.2005.Thereafter P.W.12 was transferred and P.W.13 the successor-in-officer, completed the investigation and submitted a final reportas aforesaid. 5. The final report was taken on file by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.III, Erode as P.R.C.No.8/2008. After furnishingcopies of the records to the accused free of cost under Section 207Cr.P.C, the case was committed by the said Judicial Magistrate fortrial to the Sessions court, Erode sessions division as theoffences were exclusively triable by a court of session. Thelearned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode Sessions Division, Erodetook it on file as S.C.No.57/2006 and made it over to the learnedII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode for disposal inaccordance with law. 6. In the trial court necessary charges were framed foroffences under Sections 450, 394 and 395 IPC. The accused personsdenied the charges, pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to betried. In order to prove the charges made against the accusedpersons, 13 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 13, 38 documentswere marked as Exs.P1 to P38 and six material objects were markedas M.0s.1 to M.O.6 on the side of the prosecution. After theexamination of witnesses on the side of prosecution was over, theaccused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C regardingthe incriminating materials available in the evidence adduced on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the side of the prosecution. They denied them as false andmaintained that they were innocent. No witness was examined and nodocument was marked on the side of the accused persons. Nomaterial object was also produced. 7. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced oneither side, considered the evidence brought before it and uponsuch consideration, came to the conclusion that none of the chargesmade against A3 to A5 were proved beyond reasonable doubt andacquitted them of all the charges framed against them. However,the learned trial judge held that all the charges framed againstthe appellants herein (A1 and A2) were proved, held them guilty ofoffences punishable under Sections 450, 394 and 395 IPC, convictedeach one of the appellants for the said offences with imprisonmentand fine and default sentence as indicated above. The judgment ofthe trial court dated 29.01.2007 by which the appellants have beenconvicted and the order of sentence incorporated therein arechallenged in these appeals by the appellants (A1 and A2) onvarious grounds set out in the appeal petitions. 8. The point that arises for consideration in both the appealsis as follows:"Whether the conviction of the appellants (A1 and A2)for offences punishable under Sections 450, 394 and 395IPC can be sustained in law?"9. Mr.B.Rajamani, learned counsel for the appellant inCrl.A.No.490/2007 (A1) and Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel forthe appellant in Crl.A.No.592/2007 (A2) have made identicalsubmissions in their arguments advanced in favour of the respectiveappellants, which are as follows:10. The judgment of the court below is contrary to law, weightof evidence and probabilities of the case. The judgment of thecourt below in so far as the conviction of the appellants isconcerned, is purely based on presumption, surmises andconjectures. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint has notbeen explained. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay indischarging the complaint and FIR to the magistrate which will giverise to an inference or at least a reasonable suspicion that Ex.P1-complaint and Ex.P26-First Information Report could have beenbrought into existence only after arresting the accused persons.The statement recorded by the police personnel in the GovernmentHospital outpost police station was burked and a new statement,namely Ex.P1 has been pressed into service which shall be obviousfrom the admission made by P.W.10-medical officer that theintimation was sent to the police outpost within the Governmenthospital campus and the police personnel from the said outpostpolice station came and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Manyvital and material contradictions have not been properly dealt withby the learned trial judge. The case of the prosecution regarding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the alleged arrest, recovery and identification of the accusedpersons seems to be more artificial and dramatic. P.W.1, the onlyperson who is said to have seen the accused while they werecommitting robbery has not chosen to give clear evidence as towhether she identified the appellants A1 and A2 to be the personswho committed robbery on her. The witnesses examined on the sideof the prosecution to prove the alleged confession statements ofthe accused persons leading to the recovery of the alleged stolenpropertird have not supported the case of the prosecution and theyhave simply stated that they were invited to the police station tosign as witnesses and that apart from signing the papers, they didnot know anything about the case including the alleged arrest,confession statement and recovery. Even the evidence of P.W.1 isconflicting with the statement found in Ex.P1, but the learnedtrial judge has completely ignored the said vital contradiction.The injuries allegedly sustained by P.W.1 were minor and they havebeen certified to be simple. P.W.1, who chose to go to ahomeopathy doctor (P.W.5) who gave the opinion that the injurieswere minor, had not chosen to go to the police station and prefer acomplaint before rushing to the Government hospital. The very factthat P.W.1 is said to have rushed to the hospital for such minorinjuries will give rise to a suspicion that the case of theprosecution could be a concocted one. Had the trial courtapproached the issue in an unbiased manner, it would not havearrived at any other conclusion than that the charges made againstthe appellants also had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.The very approach made by the learned judge shall give animpression that the learned trial judge was searching points forconvicting at least some of the accused persons rather thanconsidering the evidence without bias and with an open mind.11. It is the further contention of the learned counselappearing for the appellants that perversity is writ large in thejudgment of the trial court so far as it relates to the convictionof the appellants and hence the same should be set aside with theresult that the appellants should also be acquitted of the offenceswith which they stood charged.12. The submissions made by Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent state,in reply to the above said arguments advanced by learned counselfor the appellants were heard. This court paid its anxiousconsiderations to the same. The judgment of the court below,appeal petitions and the entire materials on record were alsoperused.13. Out of five persons prosecuted for offences punishableunder Sections 450, 494 and 495 IPC, three persons were found notguilty and were acquitted and two were found guilty of the saidoffences. A1 and A2 who were convicted by the trial court are theappellants herein in these appeals. The case of the prosecution isthat all the five accused persons jointly committed the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offences for which they were prosecuted. The prosecution story isthat, though the names and identity of the offenders were notinitially known, within three days after the occurrence they werefixed based on their confession statements. According to theprosecution case, P.W.2-the first Investigating officer of thiscase, while conducting regular vehicle check up, intercepted thetwo-wheeler in which the appellants herein (A1 and A2) wereproceeding and arrested them when they tried to escape withoutstopping the vehicle at the direction of the police. It is thefurther case of the prosecution that on being arrested theappellants (A1 and A2) revealed their involvement in the commissionof offences alleged in this case besides their involvement in manyother cases. The particulars of the other cases are not available.14. It is the further case of the prosecution that only afterthe arrest of appellants herein (A1 and A2) it came to light thatthree more persons, namely A3 to A5 also jointly committed theoffences along with the appellants and that all the three personswere arrested on the very same day at Avalpoondurai bus stoppursuant to the identification made by the appellants herein (A1and A2). As seen from Ex.P1-complaint and Ex.P26-first informationreport, the police were informed that only two unknown personscommitted robbery in the house of P.W.1 on 06.10.2005 at about 2.30p.m. Excepting the alleged confession statement of the appellantsleading to the alleged recovery of M.Os.1 to 6, there is no otherevidence to show that there were five persons involved in thecommission of the offences alleged till 09.10.2005 when all theaccused (five in number) were said to have been arrested. The caseof the prosecution as per the complaint and FIR remained as ifrobbery or theft was committed by two persons alone. Even thoughall the five accused were allegedy arrested on 09.10.2005 itself,the case was not immediately altered and the alteration memo wasprepared and sent only on 22.11.2005. The entire case of theprosecution rests on circumstantial evidence rather than directevidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are thearrest of the accused persons and recovery of M.Os.1 to 6. 15. P.Ws.7 and 8 are said to be employees of Sakthi PaperBoard Company. They have deposed in one voice that their employerRamamurthy directed them on 09.10.2005 to go to the police stationto attest certain documents as witnesses and that as per thedirection of their employer, they went to the police station andaffixed their signatures in the documents as directed by thepolice. They have admitted their signatures found in the allegedconfession statements of accused 1 to 5. But they have clearlydenied having been witnesses for recording the confessionstatements and for recovery of the material objects. Hence theirsignatures found in the confession statements and recovery mahazarshave been marked as Ex.P3 to P22. The recovery mahazars have beenmarked as Exs.P30, P31, P34, P36 and P37 whereas the admissibleportion of the confessions statements of the accused persons weremarked as Exs.P28, P29, P32, P33 and P35. Yet another witness https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examined on the side of the prosecution to prove recovery has beenexamined as P.W.9. He has also not supported the prosecution case.As such, P.Ws.7 to 9 were treated hostile and cross-examined by thePublic Prosecutor with the permission of the court. However, noanswer useful to the prosecution case could be elicited from themeven during the said cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence ofP.Ws.7 to 9 have to be discarded as they are not useful for provingthe prosecution case. 16. Out of the remaining witnesses, P.W.1 is the de-factocomplainant and P.Ws.2 to 6 are the supporting witnesses. Noneamong P.W.2 to 6 is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 issaid to be one of the persons who is said to have met P.W.1immediately after the occurrence and heard through the mother ofP.W.1 as to what happened. According to P.W.4's evidence, he wentto the house of P.W.1 at 4.00 p.m on 06.10.2005 on seeing a crowdhaving been collected there. On his arrival, he saw P.W.1 withinjuries on the cheek and neck and her mother informed him thatfive persons robbed P.W.1 of her jewels. It is an admitted factthat nobody knew the involvement of accused 3 to 5 in thecommission of the offences alleged till the appellants A1 and A2were arrested on 09.10.2005. The complaint recites that only twopersons came to the house of P.W.1 and committed robbery.Throughout P.W.1 maintained that she was robbed by two personsalone. She has not spoken any single word against the other threeaccused persons throughout her evidence. While so, it issurprising how the mother of P.W.1 could have informed P.W.2 thatthere were five persons in the group of robbers, that too within 1½hours after the occurrence and even before the case was registered.17. P.W.3 is none other than the son of P.W.1. His evidenceis only hearsay. P.W.4, the person who is said to have taken P.W.1to the hospital, has stated that he was informed by P.W.1 that shewas relieved of her chain by two persons. He has not spoken aboutany information furnished by P.W.1 regarding the involvement ofthree more persons. P.W.5's evidence is till bereft ofparticulars. He has simply stated that P.W.1 was brought to him at3.00 p.m on 06.10.2005 with the information that somebody snatchedher chain. P.W.6 is the brother of P.W.1. He gives an entirelynew story which is totally unbelievable. It is not the evidence ofP.W.1 that her hands were tied and her mouth was gazed with linen.On the other hand P.W.6, in his evidence would state that he wasinformed by P.W.1 when she met her while she was in the hospital;that the thieves (two in number) tied her hands behind her back,put the cloth on her mouth, caused threat and robbed not onlyjewels weighing five sovereigns but also a cash of Rs.2,000/-. Itis not the evidence of P.W.1 or any other witness that any cash wasstolen. Therefore, the introduction of P.W.6 as a witness tocorroborate P.W.1 will also show evidence of concoction, as rightlypointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. Apart from the improbabilities in the prosecution casethat as many as five persons were involved in the commission of theoffences alleged, there are other vital and material contradictionsimprobablising the case of the prosecution as against theappellants (A1 and A2) also. As per the prosecution, the complaintwas given by P.W.1 stating that she was robbed of the jewels by twounknown persons. She has not even given the salient features oftheir physical appearance. It has also not been stated in thecomplaint that she could be in a position to identify the accusedpersons if she would see them again. When that is so, and the caseof the prosecution is that the appellants herein/accused werearrested by the police while conducting regular vehicle check upand on being interrogated they revealed their involvement in thiscase, they should have arranged for a test identification parade tofind out whether P.W.1 would be in a position to identify them asthe culprits. But no such test identification parade wasconducted.19. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 itself revealsthe fact that the appellants A1 and A2 were never identified byP.W.1 to the police to be the persons who committed robbery in herhouse on 06.10.2005. Her evidence is to the effect that she wasinformed by the police, when she went to the police station toidentify the property stolen from her, that the appellantsherein/A1 and A2 were the persons who committed robbery in thehouse of P.W.1. It is her further evidence that the police onlyinformed her of the names of the appellants herein/A1 and A2.Therefore, it is quite obvious that P.W.1 herself has not assertedthat the appellants/A1 and A2 were the miscreants who committedrobbery in her house. There are also discrepancies in the evidenceof P.W.1 when it is considered in the light of the averments foundin Ex.P1-complaint. In Ex.P1-complaint she had stated that out ofthe two persons who entered her house to commit theft, one snatchedher chain and the other took the bureau key and stole the articleskept in the bureau. On the other hand, while deposing as P.W.1before the trial court, she has stated that both the personsjointly snatched the chain. Her evidence in the vernacularlanguage is extracted here under for the purpose of betterappreciation."mg;nghJ jpObud;W 2 ngh;fs; te;jhh;fs;/ vd;tPl;ow;Fs; te;jhh;fs;/ fjt[ jpwe;jpUe;jJ/ mjdhy;tPl;ow;Fs; te;jhh;fs;/ vdJ fGj;jpypUe;J brapid ,Gj;JmWj;J ,uz;L ngUk; vLj;Jf;bfhz;lhh;fs;/"20. It is her evidence that only after jointly snatching thechain from her, one of them opened the bureau with the help of thekeys found on the table and took away two chains, each weighing onesovereign, one ring and one pair of studs. The theft of studs hasnot been spelt out in the complaint. Though P.W.1 has stated in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her evidence that she identified the jewels and one cell phone on15.10.2005, she has not stated anything about the cell phone.Though she was able to give the cell phone number at the time ofexamination as P.W.1 she has admitted that she did not furnish thecell phone number either in the complaint or in the statement givento the police. The evidence of P.W.1 as to when she met theappellants/A1 and A2 subsequent to the occurrence is contradictoryto the case of the prosecution regarding the arrest of the accusedpersons. According to P.W.12 and the documents produced on theside of the prosecution, the appellants and other accused personswere arrested only on 09.10.2005 and M.Os.1 to 6 were recovered on09.10.2005. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she identified thematerial objects in the police station on 15.10.2005. To thatextent that may be probable. But in the light of her furtherstatement in her evidence to the effect that she saw theappellants/A1 and A2 in Chithode police station on 08.10.2005, thesame becomes quite improbable and rather unbelievable. Accordingto the prosecution case, all the accused persons were arrested onlyon 09.10.2005. But P.W.1's evidence is to the effect that theappellants were in the police custody in Chithode police station on08.10.2005 and she saw them on the said date. Therefore, the verytheory of arrest, confession and recovery becomes highly improbableand unbelievable. 21. Apart from the same, a more vital defect which willtotally upset the prosecution theory is that not only there is adelay in lodging the complaint but also there is an inordinate andunexplained delay in the complaint and FIR reaching the court. Thecomplaint is said to have been given on 06.10.2005 at about 5.30p.m. But the case was registered at 12.00 midnight as found inEx.P1. The endorsement found in Ex.P1 is to the effect that thecase was registered on 06.10.2005 at 24.00 hrs. The distancebetween Erode and Chitthode (place of police station) would becovered within 15 minutes if a motorised vehicle is used. Whythere was such an inordinate delay in the registering the case hasnot been explained. Furthermore, in Ex.P26- FIR the date on whichthe FIR was despatched to court has been corrected from 06.10.2005to 07.10.2005. If at all the FIR was sent to the court on07.10.2005, it should have reached the Judicial Magistrateconcerned on 07.10.2005 itself. But it is obvious from thedocuments that Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-FIR and the allegedconfession statements of the accused persons had been sent to thecourt at one and the same time and was received by the learnedJudicial Magistrate concerned at 8.00 p.m on 09.10.2005. It isseen from the initial of the Judicial Magistrate with date and thedate seal of the court of the Judicial Magistrate is concerned withthe number assigned for the tapal receipt. Therefore, it is quiteobvious that the case itself should have been foisted only afterarresting the appellants/A1 and A2. That is the reason why thereare so many improbabilities and contradictions in materialparticulars found in the evidence of the prosecution regarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged occurrence, arrest and recovery. They give at least riseto a reasonable suspicion that the case should have been foisted inorder to increase the number of cases against theappellants/accused persons who were arrested in connection withsome other cases. 22. It has been pointed out supra, that there is no directevidence to prove the offences allegedly committed by theappellants/A1 and A2 as the only eye witness P.W.1 has not madeclear assertion in her evidence that the appellants/A1 and A2 werethe persons who committed robber of her jewels and other articlesfrom her house and on the other hand, she has admitted that shecame to know that the appellants were the culprits only from theinformation furnished by the police. We have also seen thatP.W.1's evidence is to the effect that she saw appellants/A1 and A2in the police Station on 08.10.2005 whereas, it is the case of thepolice that they were arrested only 09.10.2005. The onlycircumstantial evidence on which the prosecution case has beenbuilt up is the evidence regarding the arrest, confession andrecovery. But, even in respect of the same, the independentwitnesses examined on the side of the prosecution have notsupported the prosecution version. P.Ws.7 to 9 who are said to bethe attestors of the confession statements and the seizure mahazarshave not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.7 and 8 havesimply stated that as per the direction made by their employer andin accordance with the direction made by the police, they simplyaffixed their signatures in the said documents without knowingtheir contents and that no confession statement was recorded intheir presence and no recovery was made in their presence. Theother witness, namely P.W.9 examined in this regard to proverecovery has also not supported the prosecution case. 23. If the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 9 are discarded, then theonly evidence available shall be that of the investigating officerwho deposed as P.W.12. His evidence regarding the arrest,confession statement and recovery is also not reliable in the lightof the evidence of P.W.1 that she saw the appellants/accused 1 and2 in the police station on 08.10.2005 itself. According to P.W.12,the appellants/A1 and A2 were arrested only on 09.10.2005. In thelight of such a contradiction and discrepancy it shall not be safeto rely on the uncorroborated solitary testimony of theinvestigating officer (P.W.12) for the proof of confessionstatement leading to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.24. When the prosecution is left with the option of provingits case by circumstantial evidence in the absence of reliabledirect evidence the circumstantial evidence must be of such natureforming a complete chain without any missing link. The prosecutionshould establish the guilt of the accused by proving thecircumstances forming a complete chain without any missing linkpointing towards the guilt of the accused. In this case such acomplete chain of events has not been proved to show that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellants/accused 1 and 2 are guilty of the offences with whichthey stood charged beyond reasonable doubt. There are manyimprobabilities and infirmities in the prosecution case which willlead to the inescapable conclusion that the prosecution hasmiserably failed in proving the charges framed against theappellants herein/A1 and A2. The court below, as rightly pointedby the learned counsel for the appellants, relied on suppositions,surmises and the unreliable evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.12 and cameto an erroneous conclusion, rather a perverse conclusion, that theoffences with which the appellants/A1 and A2 stood charged wereproved beyond reasonable doubt. This court does have no hesitationin coming to the conclusion that the above said finding arrived atby the trial court is discrepant, erroneous and even perverse,capable of being interfered with and reversed by this court inexercise of its appellate power.25. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that the appeals shall succeed. Accordingly theseappeals are allowed. The judgment of the trial court relating tothe conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2 for offences punishableunder Sections 450, 394 and 395 IPC is set aside. Theappellants/A1 and A2 are acquitted of all the offences with whichthey stood charged. In case they are in prison they shall be set atliberty if their custody is not required in connection with anyother case.26. The trial court has directed that M.Os.1 to 6 could bereturned to its owner, namely P.W.1. It has also directed that theowner of the Yamaha motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-27 H-2219 seizedby the police in this case had already been returned to its owneron bond and that the bond would stand cancelled after the expiry ofthe appeal time or if any appeal was preferred after the disposalof the appeal. In this case, no one except P.W.1 has claimed anyownership or right over the properties marked as M.Os.1 to 6.Similarly, no other person has claimed any ownership or any otherright in respect of the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-27 H-2219.Therefore, this court is of the considered view that nointerference can be made with the property order incorporated bythe trial court in its judgment and the same shall stand confirmed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarasr/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.4. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.7. The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode.8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.9. The District Collector, Erode.10. The Director General of Police, Madras - 4.1 cc To Mr.B.Rajamani, Advocate, SR.33910.Crl.A.No.490 & 592/2007 MBS(CO)RVL 07.08.2009