Madras High Court
Suresh @ Karuvayan vs The State on 23 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
Suresh @ Karuvayan ... Petitioner
Versus
The State
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Karungalpalayam Police Station,
Erode District.
(Crime No.139/2014) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, against the Judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge at Erode in C.A.No.96 of 2015 by Judgment dated 05.11.2015
convicting the petitioner under Sections 341 and 392 r/w 397 IPC and
506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and
seven years rigorous imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment
respectively and also to pay a fine of a sum of Rs.500/- in default to undergo
one month simple imprisonment, confirming the order made in S.C.No.94 of
2014 dated 18.11.2014 on the file of the Principal Additional Sessions
Judge, Erode.
____________
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Vijayalakshmi, Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred, challenging the
judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Erode in C.A.No.96
of 2015 by Judgment dated 05.11.2015 confirming the judgment of the
learned Principal Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.94 of 2014
dated 18.11.2014.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2014 at about 9.00 am.,
at Thirunagar Colony Bus Stop, within the jurisdiction of Karungalpalayam
Police Station, when the P.W's.1 and 2 were standing and conversing with
each another, the accused/petitioner suddenly appeared and restrained them
and kept a knife over the neck of P.W.1. He threatened him to hand over any
money kept in his pocket. When, P.W's.1 and 2 refused to give money, the
accused threatened P.W.1 that he would kill him by stabbing on his stomach
and thereafter, he took away Rs.350/- from P.W.1's shirt pocket along with
his Black colour Nokia Cell Phone. At that time, P.W.2 raised an alarm by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
shouting loudly. Noticing the same, the public came to the rescue of P.W.1.
The accused threatened the public by showing knife and ran away from the
place of occurrence. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was
registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 342, 392 read
with 396 and 506 (ii) of IPC in Cr.No.139 of 2014, by the respondent
police.
3.Thereafter, P.W.8-Agastin Peter, Inspector of Police took up the
case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence, prepared
observation mahazar-Ex.P.6 in the presence of witnesses and recorded their
statements. On the same day, he arrested the accused at about 12.15 hours;
recorded his confession statement in the presence of the witnesses and also
recovered the knife used for the occurrence and the money extorted by him,
under Seizure Mahazar. He sent the case properties to the Court under
Form-95 and after completing the investigation, the respondent police laid
the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397 and
506 (ii) of IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the
materials available on record, the learned Trial Judge framed charges under
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
Sections 342, 392 read with 396 and 506 (ii) of IPC. When the accused was
questioned, he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 8
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8; 7 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 and P7 and 3 Material Objects were marked as M.O's.1 to 3. On the
side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
After completion of trial and after considering the materials available on
record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under
Sections 341, 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of IPC and convicted the
accused and sentenced him as under:
Offence Punishment Imposed
U/s 341 of IPC To undergo one year simple imprisonment
U/s 392 read with To undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment
397 of IPC
U/s 506 (ii) of IPC To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default simple
imprisonment of one month.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the accused preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.96 of 2015 before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Erode and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
the same was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
Hence, the petitioner/accused had preferred the present Criminal Revision
Case.
7.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials
available on record.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are
contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and the witnesses; the learned Trial
Judge has not properly given credit to the contradictions and also the benefit
of doubt to the accused; despite the case property was recovered within one
hour from the time of occurrence, the extorted money of Rs.350/- was not
recovered then and there; Hence, it creates a doubt on the case of the
prosecution. It is also submitted that this case has been registered by the
prosecuting agency, just for statistical purposes and the accused has not
involved in the offence as alleged.
9.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the evidences
of P.W's.1 and 2 are clear and that the alleged contradictions are not a
material contradiction and the Courts below has correctly appreciated the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
evidence and convicted appropriately.
10.The specific case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2014, when
P.W.1 was standing near the Thirunagar Colony Bus Stop and was
conversing with his friend-P.W.2, the accused came there and kept the knife
on the neck of P.W.1 and threatened him to give any money kept in his
pocket. In the complaint given by P.W.1, it is mentioned that the accused
kept the knife over the neck. But, in the evidence of P.W.1, he has stated
that the accused kept the knife over his hip. The one and only eye witness,
who is said to have been witnessed the occurrence is P.W.2. But, P.W.2 has
not supported the prosecution case. However, P.W.3 has stated in his
evidence that he saw the accused running from the place of occurrence. But
in his cross examination, he has stated that when he went to the place of
occurrence, only by hearing the noise of people who had already gathered
there. So, he could have joined the group after the occurrence and it could
not have been possible for him to notice the accused running from the place
of occurrence. Further, it is stated that the police arrived to the place of
occurrence, immediately after 10 minutes and they got a written complaint.
P.W.3 affixed his signature as a witness. But, no such document has been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
produced before the Court and in fact, a complaint has been given by the
P.W.1, i.e., at 10 a.m., that too after an hour of the alleged occurrence.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention of this
Court to the Rough Sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.6, in which the shop of
P.W.3 is shown behind the bus stop. Since the bus stop is in front of the
shop of P.W.3, it is not possible for him to see the alleged occurrence. The
Investigation Officer was examined as P.W.8 and he stated that he had
arrested the accused on 19.03.2014 on the same day itself, immediately after
15 minutes of registering the case, i.e., at 12.15 hours.
12.The only direct evidence is the oral evidence of P.W.1. He has
stated in his cross examination that when he went to the police station to
lodge the complaint, the accused was already there and he was asked to
identify the accused. When the Investigation Officer has stated that the
accused was arrested only at 12.15 hours, P.W.1 has stated that even when
he went to the police station at about 10.00 am., to lodge the complaint, he
saw the accused kept in the police station. This contradiction in the evidence
of P.W.1 and the Investigation Officer no doubt creates a doubt in the case
of the prosecution. If the accused was secured immediately after the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
occurrence, it would have been possible for the police to recover the entire
amount of Rs.350/- which is alleged to have been extorted from P.W.1. So,
the self contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and the contradictory
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 would only weaken the case of the
prosecution. Further, the place of occurrence seems to be a busy area which
has a lot of every day happenings. In such a busy area, the accused had
threatened P.W.1 and extorted money from him. Though the Material
Objects are alleged to have been recovered from the accused on the basis of
the confession statement, recovery witnesses did not identify the Material
Objects during their evidence.
13.The learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the contradictions in
the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses before proceeding to
record the decision of the case and thus it has been confirmed by the 1 st
Appellate Court also. The evidence of the prosecution is not sound enough
to prove its case. Due to the reasons stated above, I feel the Judgment of the
1st Appellate Court is liable to be reversed.
14.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is Allowed and the
judgment dated 05.11.2015 made in C.A.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Erode, is hereby set aside. Fine amount if
any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Bail bond already
executed if any, shall also be canceled.
23.12.2021
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
Jer
To:
1) The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Erode.
2) The Principal Additional Sessions Judge
Erode.
3) The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
Jer
Order made in
Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2016
Dated:
23.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
