Gnanamani vs State Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 23748 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 03.12.2021

                                                            CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                     Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

                  Gnanamani
                                                                                            ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.
                  State rep. by
                  Inspector of Police,
                  Chithamur Police Station,
                  Kancheepuram District.
                  (Crime No.17/2007)
                                                                                       ... Respondent

                          Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
                  aside the judgment dated 09.03.2016 in C.A.No.40 of 2015 passed by the
                  learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram
                  District confirming the Judgment dated 21.05.2011 in C.C.No.63 of 2008 on the
                  file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam.


                                    For Petitioner       : Mr.T.R.Ravi
                                    For Respondent       : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                              ***




                 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016




                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the judgment

of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet dated 09.03.2016 made

in C.A.No.40 of 2011 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Madurantakam dated 21.05.2011 made in C.C.No.53 of 2008.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.01.2007 at about 12.30 p.m,

the accused entered into the house of the de facto complainant by removing the

tile on the roof and stole a pair of ear stud, a pair of mattal, two gold chains and

one pair of anklet from the lockers of the Almirah (bureau).

3. On the complaint given by PW1 on 21.01.2007, PW11/Sub Inspector

of Police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2007 under Sections 457 and 380

IPC and prepared the FIR. After registering the case, PW-11/Sub Inspector of

Police took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence and

prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P12) along with rough sketch (Ex.P13) in the

presence of the witnesses and examined some of the witnesses. Further

investigation was taken up by PW13 and he arrested the accused on 13.11.2007

at about 4.00.p.m and recorded the confession statement in the presence of the

witnesses. On the confession given by the accused, he recovered the material

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

objects from PW6 and PW9 in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 under seizure

mahazar. He examined the rest of the witnesses. He also collected the finger

prints from the scene of occurrence and sent the same for examination of the

Fingerprint expert. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet

against the accused under Sections 457 & 380 IPC.

4. PW12- Fingerprint expert has stated in his evidence that he collected

four fingerprints from the place of occurrence and out of which one fingerprint

resembled the sample finger print of the accused, which was sent for

comparison.

5. After the case was taken on file and copies were furnished to the

accused and on perusal of the prima facie materials on record, charges have

been framed against the accused under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. When the

accused was questioned, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence,

trial was conducted.

6. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as

PW1 to PW13 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. No witness

was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. After

concluding the trial and considering the materials available on record, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 457

and 380 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as under:-

Offence Punishment Imposed 457 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 380 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment

7. The appeal preferred by the accused challenging the judgment of the

Trial Court was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

Aggrieved over that, the accused has preferred the present revision case.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent and

perused the entire material available on record.

9. Point for consideration:-

Whether the conviction and sentence of the first accused for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge based on the materials available on record is fair and proper?

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

material objects, which are alleged to have been recovered on the confession of

the accused were not marked as Material Objects before the Court and hence,

there is nothing available on record to connect the accused to the occurrence.

He has further submitted that since no Material Objects identified by the

complainant and the other witnesses, who were present at the time of recovery,

no credence can be given to the case of the prosecution. He has further

submitted that despite the evidence of the handwriting expert's report is to the

effect that one of the fingerprints collected from the scene of occurrence found

to be matching with the alleged sample fingerprint of the accused, the

prosecution has not established how the sample fingerprint was obtained and

whether it was obtained by following the due procedure; on this aspect, no

witness was examined and hence, the Court cannot convict the accused based

on the evidence of the fingerprint expert alone.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent submitted that the recovery witnesses have deposed evidence in

favour of the prosecution and the fingerprints available in the scene of crime

also found to be matching with the sample fingerprint of the accused.

12. On perusal of the records, it is disappointing to note that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

prosecution had omitted to show and mark the material objects when PW1 was

examined. The Material Objects were not shown to PW1 and the same were not

identified by them. Even PW1's husband, who was examined as PW2 has not

not identified the Material Objects before the Court. The witness, who was

said to be present at the time of the recovery (PW4), has also not given a clear

evidence in favour of the prosecution. In fact, only during the chief

examination, he had given an assertive answer on the leading question put by

the prosecutor. PWs.6 and 8, who are said to be the pawn brokers and from

whom the Material Objects were recovered, were also not properly utilised by

the prosecution to identify the Material Objects involved in this case. Despite

one of the fingerprints alleged to have been recovered from the scene of crime

was matching with the sample signature, Investigation Officer has not stated in

his evidence that the finger print was recovered from the scene of crime with

the help of a scientific expert. Further, it is not proved before the Court that

the sample fingerprints were obtained from the accused in a manner known to

law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

13. In cases of this nature, the production of Material Objects and its

identification through the relevant witnesses are very essential. Since it is

patently missing, the Courts below ought to have taken note of the said

omission and appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Since the

Courts below had overlooked the doubtful circumstances and failed to give

benefit of doubt to the accused, I feel that the judgment of the lower Court

warrants interference.

14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment

of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet,

Kancheepuram District made in C.A.No.40 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The

Petitioner/accused is acquitted of all charges. Fine, if any, paid shall be

refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.

03.12.2021 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

R.N.MANJULA, J

kmi To

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam.

3.The Inspector of Police, Chithamur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai-600 104.

Crl.R.C.No.1131 of 2016

03.12.2021

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