The Petitione/ v. The State

CRL.A.No.786 OF 2004 The Petitione/Accused was directed to be released on bail in and by the order of this Court dated 13.4.2004 in Crl.M.P.No. 5463/2004.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 06.06.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.786 of 2004K.Arjunan .. Petitioner/Accusedvs. The State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,B-4, Race Course Police Station, in Cr.No.1006/2000,Coimbatore, .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: This Revision petition has been preferred against judgment dated15.4.2004 made in Crl.A.No.150 of 2003 on the file of the AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, (FTC-II), Coimbatore, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III,Coimbatore, dated 20.05.2003.For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arockia DassFor Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.JUDGMENTThis revision petition has been preferred by the accused in C.C.No.61of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, who has been charged under Section 379 IPC for having committed theft of gold chain weighing 4 1/2 sovereigns.

The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Coimbatore, and on appearance of the accused on summons copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when charge under Section 379 IPC was framed against the accused and explained to him he pleaded not guilty.

Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P.7 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked.

According to P.W.1, 22.12.2000 at about 9.30 pm while he along with his wife P.W.2 were returning after attending to a function in Appasamy College, the accused came behind in TVS-50 while crossing them suddenly snatched away the gold chain from the neck of his wife and began to run away from the seen of occurrence after leaving his moped at the place of occurrence and that at about 10.15 pm he preferred Ex.P.1-complaint with the police after handing over the moped used by the accused at the time of occurrence. He also identified M.O.1 as the chain snatched by the accused.

P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.2 would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that on the day and at the time of occurrence while she was returning after attending the college function along with her husband P.W.1, the accused who came in a two wheeler snatched away 4 1/2sovereigns of gold chain from her neck and ran away after leaving the moped and that her husband P.W.1 preferred a complaint with the police and after some time the police handed over the chain to her. She would further depose to the effect that she had polished the chain and this fact was not known to P.W.1.

P.W.3, an eye witness to the occurrence, would depose that he saw the occurrence which took place on 22.12.2000 at about 9.30 pm. He wouldgo one step further and depose that he along with P.W.1 caught hold of the accused and handed over him to the police.

P.W.4 and P.W.5 are mahazar witnesses. P.W.6 is the recoverymahazar witness, all of them turned hostile.

P.W.7 is another recovery mahazar witness, who would depose that the police arrested the accused on 23.12.2000 at 8.30 pm before the'Dinamani" Daily's office and the accused voluntarily gave a confession statement to the police, which is Ex.P.4, recorded by the police in his presence. Ex.P.5 is the mahazar for the recovery of the chain from the shirt pocket of the acussed.

P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who had registered the case inCr.No.1006/2000 on the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint preferred by P.W.1. Hehad visited the place of occurrence and prepared mahazar and rough sketch(Ex.P.7) in the presence of witnesses and arrested the accused and recorded his confession and on the basis of the confession has recovered the property. After completing the investigation, he has filed the chargesheet against the accused under Section 379 IPC.

When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused has denied his complicity with the crime. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 3 months RI and slaped a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence.

Aggreived by the findings of the learned trial judge the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned first appellant judge FTC-II, Coimbatore, after hearing both sides has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the findings of the learned trial judge, which necessitated the accused to knock at the doors of this Court.

Now the point for determination in this revision petition is whether the judgment in C.A.No.150 of 2003 on the file of the AdditionalSessions Judge, (FTC-II), Coimbatore, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision?13.The Point:- The learned counsel Mr.T.Arockia Dass appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that both the courts below have not meticulously scanned the evidence available before them and unfortunately an innocent person has been convicted by both the Courts below. Thelearned counsel for the revision petitioner would place before this Courtthe infirmities looming large in this case. According to the prosecution,P.W.3 is an eye witness to the occurrence. Even though he would depose on the side of the prosecution to the effect that on the date of occurrence at the time of occurrence the accused has snatched M.O.1-chain from the neck of P.W.2, P.W.3 will go one step further and say that the accused was caught hold of by both P.W.1 and himself and produced before the police.