Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed in C.A.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, confirming the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.198 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 394 r/w 397 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2011, at about 11.45 a.m, the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of the complainant. The first accused caught hold of the complainant's neck, due to which she fell unconscious and after pushing her under the cot, he snatched the thali chain weighing 6 ¾ sovereigns. The second accused, who initially stood outside the house, thereafter entered the house and assaulted the complainant on her chest and snatched gold ring weighing 2 ½ grams. Subsequently, A3 and A4 helped A1 and A2 in selling the stolen jewels.Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20233. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.1032 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 394 r/w 397 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.198 of 2014.4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. The prosecution had also produced M.Os.1 to 8. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences under Sections 454 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Further, they were convicted for the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo seven years of simple imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023the said conviction, the second accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.52 of 2022 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam and the same was also dismissed and the order of conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed.6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and in her deposition, she categorically stated that A1 alone entered her house while A2 was standing outside of the house and guarding the gate. Thereafter, the first accused caught hold of her neck, due to which she fell unconscious. Therefore, they thought that she died and kept her under the cot. Thereafter, he snatched her chain and ring and escaped by their two wheeler. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he did not posses any weapon and there is no overt act on the part of the petitioner to commit robbery. Accordingly, the offence under Section 397 of IPC is not at all attracted against the petitioner. At the worst, he may be convicted for the offence under Section 394 of IPC alone. Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20237. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the complainant and he stood out side of the house and guarded the gate to ensure no one is entering into the house. He further submitted that in order to attract the offence under Section 397 of IPC, the offender should use a deadly weapon, or cause grievous hurt or death during the commission of robbery. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner neither possessed any weapon nor entered the house of the victim to commit robbery. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1279 in the case of Ram Ratan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the victim, examined as P.W.1, categorically deposed that A1 and A2 trespassed into her house and committed robbery by snatching her thali chain and ring. In order to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and they categorically corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and as such, Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently held the petitioner guilty. Hence, it does not warrant any interference of this Court.9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.10. The victim was examined as P.W.2. A perusal of her cross examination reveals that the first accused alone trespassed into her house and strangulated her neck, due to which she fell unconscious. In fact, the first accused thought that the victim had died and pushed her under the cot, after which he snatched her thali chain and ring. At that juncture, the second accused/petitioner was standing outside the house and guarding the gate. Further, the victim did not identify the petitioner in the dock during the trial. The relevant portion of her cross examination reads as follows :“fjit jpwf;Fk; rj;jk; nfl;lJ ehd; ghh;j;jnghJ xUj;jh; caukhft[k; xUj;jh; Fs;skhft[k; ,Ue;jhh; Fs;skhf ,Ue;jth; btspna ,Ue;jhh; caukhf ,Ue;j uh$Jiu tPl;ow;F te;jhh; eP ahbud;W nfl;lnghJ vd;id Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023mGj;jpgpoj;Jf;bfhz;L ehd; nghuhoghh;j;njd; Koatpy;iy rd;idiy K:otpl;lhh;/ vdf;F nyrhf kaf;fk; te;jJ nghy; ,Ue;jJ/ mg;nghJ vd; fGj;jpy; ,Ue;j jhypruil fHw;wpbfhz;L jhyp jhypbfho Fz;L ehzy; 2 bkhj;jk; 8 gt[d; ,Uf;Fk;. rhl;rp uh$Jiuia Fwpj;J milahdk; fhl;Lfpwhh;/ ehd; brj;J ngha;tpl;nld; vd;W epidj;J nghh;it nghl;L K:o fl;oYf;F moapy; js;sptpl;lhh;fs;/ gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;jth;fs; ahnuDk; tpUe;jho te;Js;sjhf epidj;J ahUk; tutpy;iy/ gpwF eif vLj;Jf; bfhz;L fpsk;gp tpl;lhh;fs;/ bfh";rneuk; fHpj;J mf;fk;gf;fk; cs;sth;fs; Mis fhztpy;iy vd;W tPl;oy; te;J fl;oYf;F fPnH gphpah mk;kh cs;shh;fs; vd;W btspna ,Gj;jhh;fs;/ vd; fzth; kjpak; rhg;ghl;L ilk;Kf;F te;Jtpl;lhh;/ vd;Dila fzth; fy';fpnghdh; tpUj;jhry; ,gp Mgp!py; ,Ue;J te;Jtpl;lhh;fs; gpd;dh; tpUj;jhry; $pbfr;rpf;F miHj;Jnghf KobtLj;jhh;fs;/ gpd;dh; Rnyr;dh lhf;lh; te;J ghh;j;jhh;fs;/ gpd;dh; $pbfr;rpf;F miHj;Jnghdhh;fs; gpd;dh; flY}h; fz;zd; M!;gj;jphpf;F miHj;Jnghdhh; m';nfa[k; vdf;F ngr;R tuhJ vd;W brhy;yptpl;lhh;/ mg;nghJ nghyp!; m';F te;J vd;d ele;jJ vd;W tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/”Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 202311. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the victim. Further, he joined with the other accused persons with intention to commit robbery and went to the house of the victim. However, he did not attack the victim. Therefore, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 397 IPC are not made out as against the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 397 of IPC, which reads as follows:397. Robbery, or dacotiy, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”.12. Thus, it is clear that the charge under Section 397 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioner. However, the charge under Section 394 is clearly made out as against him. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 394 of IPC, which reads as follows :Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery - If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robber, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”13. Though the petitioner was standing outside the victim's house, he assisted the first accused to commit robbery. Therefore, the charge under Section 394 of IPC is clearly attracted against him. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1279 in the case of Rama Ratan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :“17. From the position of law as enunciated by this Court and noted above, firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or appreciation in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023weapon, only such of the 'offender' who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC.18. Though the above would be the effect and scope of Section 397 IPC as a standalone provision, the application of the same will arise in the totality of the allegation and the consequent charge that will be framed and the accused would be tried for such charge. In such circumstances, in the teeth of the offence under Section 397 IPC being applicable to the offender alone, the vicaribaility of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions of law, which may become relevant, is also invoked along with Section 397 IPC. In such event, it will have to be looked at differently in the totality of the facts, evidence and cirumstances involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that particular case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case, the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant nor was such an allegation raised and proved against the appellant. Hence, benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor alone as being guilty, will be available to the appellant if there is no specific allegation against him.19. Keeping this aspect in view, it is necessary to examine the manner in which P.W.1 has alleged against the appellant so as to consider whether the appellant is also an 'offender' who used the firearm so as to be charged under both, Section 392 and 397 IPC even if he is complicit to the incident, more particularly when Section 34 IPC has not been invoked in the instant case.”14. In view of the above discussion, the charge under Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023Section 397 is not attracted against the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 397 of IPC against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. However, the petitioner, along with A1, committed the offence of robbery, and therefore, his conviction under Section 394 of IPC is hereby modified. Insofar as Section 454 is concerned, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the victim and as such, Section 454 also cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed in C.A.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, confirming the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.198 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam, is hereby set aside insofar as the conviction under Sections 397 & 454 of IPC is concerned. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 394 of IPC alone is hereby modified and the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Though the petitioner had withdrawn the petition filed for suspension of sentence, he did not Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023surrender so far to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence forthwith, failing which, the order of modification shall stand automatically cancelled and the original order passed by the Trial Court and which was further confirmed by the Appellate Court shall be automatically restored.15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. 25.06.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderLppTo1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam2. The Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam.3. The Station House Officer,Vridhachalam Police Station,Cuddalore District.Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20234. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,LppCrl.RC.No.1575 of 202325.06.2025Page 14 of 14

Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed in C.A.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, confirming the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.198 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 394 r/w 397 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2011, at about 11.45 a.m, the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of the complainant. The first accused caught hold of the complainant's neck, due to which she fell unconscious and after pushing her under the cot, he snatched the thali chain weighing 6 ¾ sovereigns. The second accused, who initially stood outside the house, thereafter entered the house and assaulted the complainant on her chest and snatched gold ring weighing 2 ½ grams. Subsequently, A3 and A4 helped A1 and A2 in selling the stolen jewels.Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20233. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.1032 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 394 r/w 397 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.198 of 2014.4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. The prosecution had also produced M.Os.1 to 8. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences under Sections 454 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Further, they were convicted for the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo seven years of simple imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023the said conviction, the second accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.52 of 2022 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam and the same was also dismissed and the order of conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed.6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and in her deposition, she categorically stated that A1 alone entered her house while A2 was standing outside of the house and guarding the gate. Thereafter, the first accused caught hold of her neck, due to which she fell unconscious. Therefore, they thought that she died and kept her under the cot. Thereafter, he snatched her chain and ring and escaped by their two wheeler. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he did not posses any weapon and there is no overt act on the part of the petitioner to commit robbery. Accordingly, the offence under Section 397 of IPC is not at all attracted against the petitioner. At the worst, he may be convicted for the offence under Section 394 of IPC alone. Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20237. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the complainant and he stood out side of the house and guarded the gate to ensure no one is entering into the house. He further submitted that in order to attract the offence under Section 397 of IPC, the offender should use a deadly weapon, or cause grievous hurt or death during the commission of robbery. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner neither possessed any weapon nor entered the house of the victim to commit robbery. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1279 in the case of Ram Ratan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the victim, examined as P.W.1, categorically deposed that A1 and A2 trespassed into her house and committed robbery by snatching her thali chain and ring. In order to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and they categorically corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and as such, Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently held the petitioner guilty. Hence, it does not warrant any interference of this Court.9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.10. The victim was examined as P.W.2. A perusal of her cross examination reveals that the first accused alone trespassed into her house and strangulated her neck, due to which she fell unconscious. In fact, the first accused thought that the victim had died and pushed her under the cot, after which he snatched her thali chain and ring. At that juncture, the second accused/petitioner was standing outside the house and guarding the gate. Further, the victim did not identify the petitioner in the dock during the trial. The relevant portion of her cross examination reads as follows :“fjit jpwf;Fk; rj;jk; nfl;lJ ehd; ghh;j;jnghJ xUj;jh; caukhft[k; xUj;jh; Fs;skhft[k; ,Ue;jhh; Fs;skhf ,Ue;jth; btspna ,Ue;jhh; caukhf ,Ue;j uh$Jiu tPl;ow;F te;jhh; eP ahbud;W nfl;lnghJ vd;id Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023mGj;jpgpoj;Jf;bfhz;L ehd; nghuhoghh;j;njd; Koatpy;iy rd;idiy K:otpl;lhh;/ vdf;F nyrhf kaf;fk; te;jJ nghy; ,Ue;jJ/ mg;nghJ vd; fGj;jpy; ,Ue;j jhypruil fHw;wpbfhz;L jhyp jhypbfho Fz;L ehzy; 2 bkhj;jk; 8 gt[d; ,Uf;Fk;. rhl;rp uh$Jiuia Fwpj;J milahdk; fhl;Lfpwhh;/ ehd; brj;J ngha;tpl;nld; vd;W epidj;J nghh;it nghl;L K:o fl;oYf;F moapy; js;sptpl;lhh;fs;/ gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;jth;fs; ahnuDk; tpUe;jho te;Js;sjhf epidj;J ahUk; tutpy;iy/ gpwF eif vLj;Jf; bfhz;L fpsk;gp tpl;lhh;fs;/ bfh";rneuk; fHpj;J mf;fk;gf;fk; cs;sth;fs; Mis fhztpy;iy vd;W tPl;oy; te;J fl;oYf;F fPnH gphpah mk;kh cs;shh;fs; vd;W btspna ,Gj;jhh;fs;/ vd; fzth; kjpak; rhg;ghl;L ilk;Kf;F te;Jtpl;lhh;/ vd;Dila fzth; fy';fpnghdh; tpUj;jhry; ,gp Mgp!py; ,Ue;J te;Jtpl;lhh;fs; gpd;dh; tpUj;jhry; $pbfr;rpf;F miHj;Jnghf KobtLj;jhh;fs;/ gpd;dh; Rnyr;dh lhf;lh; te;J ghh;j;jhh;fs;/ gpd;dh; $pbfr;rpf;F miHj;Jnghdhh;fs; gpd;dh; flY}h; fz;zd; M!;gj;jphpf;F miHj;Jnghdhh; m';nfa[k; vdf;F ngr;R tuhJ vd;W brhy;yptpl;lhh;/ mg;nghJ nghyp!; m';F te;J vd;d ele;jJ vd;W tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/”Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 202311. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the victim. Further, he joined with the other accused persons with intention to commit robbery and went to the house of the victim. However, he did not attack the victim. Therefore, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 397 IPC are not made out as against the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 397 of IPC, which reads as follows:397. Robbery, or dacotiy, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”.12. Thus, it is clear that the charge under Section 397 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioner. However, the charge under Section 394 is clearly made out as against him. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 394 of IPC, which reads as follows :Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery - If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robber, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”13. Though the petitioner was standing outside the victim's house, he assisted the first accused to commit robbery. Therefore, the charge under Section 394 of IPC is clearly attracted against him. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1279 in the case of Rama Ratan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :“17. From the position of law as enunciated by this Court and noted above, firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or appreciation in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023weapon, only such of the 'offender' who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC.18. Though the above would be the effect and scope of Section 397 IPC as a standalone provision, the application of the same will arise in the totality of the allegation and the consequent charge that will be framed and the accused would be tried for such charge. In such circumstances, in the teeth of the offence under Section 397 IPC being applicable to the offender alone, the vicaribaility of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions of law, which may become relevant, is also invoked along with Section 397 IPC. In such event, it will have to be looked at differently in the totality of the facts, evidence and cirumstances involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that particular case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case, the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant nor was such an allegation raised and proved against the appellant. Hence, benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor alone as being guilty, will be available to the appellant if there is no specific allegation against him.19. Keeping this aspect in view, it is necessary to examine the manner in which P.W.1 has alleged against the appellant so as to consider whether the appellant is also an 'offender' who used the firearm so as to be charged under both, Section 392 and 397 IPC even if he is complicit to the incident, more particularly when Section 34 IPC has not been invoked in the instant case.”14. In view of the above discussion, the charge under Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023Section 397 is not attracted against the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 397 of IPC against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. However, the petitioner, along with A1, committed the offence of robbery, and therefore, his conviction under Section 394 of IPC is hereby modified. Insofar as Section 454 is concerned, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not trespass into the house of the victim and as such, Section 454 also cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed in C.A.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, confirming the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.198 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam, is hereby set aside insofar as the conviction under Sections 397 & 454 of IPC is concerned. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 394 of IPC alone is hereby modified and the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Though the petitioner had withdrawn the petition filed for suspension of sentence, he did not Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023surrender so far to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence forthwith, failing which, the order of modification shall stand automatically cancelled and the original order passed by the Trial Court and which was further confirmed by the Appellate Court shall be automatically restored.15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. 25.06.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderLppTo1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam2. The Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhachalam.3. The Station House Officer,Vridhachalam Police Station,Cuddalore District.Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 20234. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC .No.1575 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,LppCrl.RC.No.1575 of 202325.06.2025Page 14 of 14