Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs State By Inpector Of Police on 4 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
Sakthivel
S/o.Palanisamy ...Petitioner
Vs.
State by Inpector of Police
Malayampalayam Police Station
Erode District
Crime No.23 of 2012 ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 Code of
Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction imposed in the Judgment dated
09.01.2014 made in C.A.No.66 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Erode, modified the conviction imposed in Judgement dated 04.09.2013
made in C.C.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Kodumudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmuga Rajeshwaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the
conviction imposed in the Judgement dated 09.01.2014 made in C.A.No.66 of
2013 on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Erode, modifying the
conviction imposed in Judgement dated 04.09.2013 made in C.C.No.66 of 2012
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.
2.The brief facts of the case is that PW1 Periasamy is the son of PW4
Saraswathi. On 03.02.2012 at about 4.00 p.m., when PW4 was removing weeds
in her field, P.W.1 and his friend P.W.3 Nanthakumar, P.W.7 Nataraj, P.W.8
Sakthivel, P.W.6 Vadivel and one Sankar were chatting near the field. At that
time, both the accused came in a motor Cycle (MO2) bearing No.TN 28
AA0055 and one of the accused went to the field and snatched the gold chain
(MO1) weighing 4 sovereigns from the P.W.4. and attempted to escape from
the scene of occurrence in the motor cycle. On hearing the cry of P.W.4, P.W.1,
P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have followed the accused in their vehicles to
apprehend them. When the accused were fleeing in the motor cycle near
Karumandampalayam speed breaker, they fell down running the bike over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
speed breaker and again they tried to escape from the place, at that time, all the
witnesses, including P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the villagers, chased both the
accused and caught hold of them and they had found that the accused had
sustained injuries due to the fall from the speed breaker and they were
apprehended at the spot and the 2nd accused Suresh, handed over MO1/chain to
P.W.1. After giving first aid to the accused 1 and 2, P.W.1 and others, handed
over the accused to the police station along with the motor cycle and lodged a
complaint, which has been marked as Ex.P.1.
3. On 03.02.2012, P.W.1 appeared before P.W.9, the Inspector of
Police, at about 7.00 p.m. along with the accused and their two wheelers and
handed them over to P.W.9. P.W.9 received a complaint from P.W.1. and
registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2012 under Section 379 IPC which has
been marked as Ex.P3 (printed FIR) and he forwarded the complaint and
printed FIR to the Court. When PW.9 examined the witnesses, all of them gave
statements about the occurrence and the same was recorded. He has also seized
MO1/chain handed over by P.W.1 and MO2/motorcycle bearing registration
No.TN 28 AA 0055 and forwarded the same to the Court under form 95
(Ex.P4). He has also recorded the statement of witnesses. On 04.02.2012, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P5) in the
presence of witnesses and recorded their statements. He has also sent the
accused to the judicial custody. After his transfer, his successor PW10
conducted further investigation and finally laid the charge sheet against the
accused on 28.04.2012 under Section 392 IPC.
4.The petitioner along with other accused was tried and after
completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the incriminating
evidence was put to the accused by the lower court. The accused had denied the
same. No oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the
accused. Thereafter, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Kodumudi, on the basis of the available evidence and materials, found the
accused guilty and convicted them vide C.C.No.66 of 2012 by Judgement dated
04.09.2013 for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Against the
conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred a C.A.No.66 of 2013 before
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
5.The appellate Court on finding that there was no injury on the
P.W.4 and also finding that the Accident Register was not marked and holding
that the ingredients of offence under Section 392 have not been proved by the
prosecution, had modified the conviction to one under Section 379 IPC vide
order dated 09.01.2014 in C.A.No.66 of 2013. However, the sentence imposed
by the lower Court was unaltered. Against which, the present revision has been
filed.
6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Courts
below have failed to take into consideration the inconsistency between the
witnesses. Further, after having found that the petitioner was not guilty under
Section 392 IPC, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. He
would further submit that in the alternative if the Court is not convinced, some
leniency may be shown to the petitioner in view of the fact that the occurrence
had happened during the year 2012 and thereafter, the petitioner had not been
brought to any adverse notice for the past eight years.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that in
this case, the prosecution has categorically proved the case by cogent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
evidences. The petitioner and other accused were caught red handed at the
place of occurrence and recovery was also made from them and they have also
been identified by the witnesses. However, only for the reason that the Accident
Register was not marked, the appellate Court had modified the conviction to
one under Section 379 IPC instead of 392 IPC. He would submit that the
petitioner is a habitual offender and that he is also involved in three previous
cases. Out of which, he has been convicted in one case and pleaded guilty in
another case and he has been acquitted in yet another case. Hence, he would
vehemently object to set aside the order of conviction.
8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the materials on record.
9. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that on 03.02.2012
at about 4.00 p.m., while PW4 was working in the field, the 2 nd accused in this
case had gone near her and snatched the chain from her neck and thereafter, he
along with the petitioner attempted to escape in a motor cycle. On hearing her
alarm, all the witnesses have chased the accused in their respective vehicles and
apprehended them and retrieved MO1/chain from them. Thereafter, the case
came to be registered against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
10. Perusal of evidence, shows that P.W.1 is the son of P.W.4 whose
chain has been snatched by the accused. He had deposed that at about 4.00 p.m.
while his mother was removing the weeds from the field, he was chatting with
P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 in the nearby place. At that time, both the
accused came in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 28 AA 0055 and
gone near the field of P.W.4 and one of the accused had snatched the chain
from the mother of P.W.4 and thereafter, they had attempted to leave the place
in their vehicle. On hearing the alarm of P.W.4, P.W.1 and others chased the
accused in their motor cycle, while the accused were crossing near the place
called Karumandampalayam, they were thrown while running over a speed
breaker and they had fallen down from the motor cycle. At that time, the
witnesses and other villagers caught hold of them and they have also retrieved
the chain/MO1 from the 2nd accused. Thereafter, the accused were treated in
the hospital and handed over to the police and P.W.1 had lodged a complaint.
11. P.W.2 in his evidence, has clearly spoken about following the
accused at the relevant point of time in his motor cycle and catching the
accused near Karumandampalayam. He has also stated that the accused fell
down from the motor cycle while they were crossing the speed breaker near
Karumandampalaym.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
12. P.W.3 also corroborated the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He has
also clearly stated that the accused were chased and caught hold near
Karumandampalayam.
13. P.W.4, the mother of P.W.1, has clearly stated that while she was
working in the field, the accused came near her and snatched the chain and
thereafter, ran away from the scene of occurrence and she raised alarm.
14. P.W.5. also spoken about the incident. She had stated that while
she was working nearby field, she had seen one of the accused snatching the
chain and ran away along with other accused.
15. P.W.6 and P.W.8 in their evidence have categorically stated that
the accused were caused hold near Karumandampalayam speed breaker when
they fell down from the vehicle.
16. P.W.9 /The Sub Inspector of Police who received the complaint
on the same day along with the accused, vehicle, and chain, registered the case
and thereafter conducted the investigation and sent the accused to judicial
custody and the properties to the Court under Form 95.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
17. From the evidence of witnesses, it could be seen that both the
accused have committed offence of snatching a chain and thereafter, both of
them have attempted to run away from the place of occurrence in a motor cycle
and thereby, the witnesses have chased them. While chasing, the accused have
fallen down near the speed brake, during that time they were caught red
handedly by the witnesses and thereafter the accused were treated in the
hospital and handed over to the police.
18. The Court below have also found that there was no motive what
so ever for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused in this case. The
petitioner /accused when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had only stated
that he is no way connected with the said occurrence. However, the Appellate
Court taking into consideration of the inconsistency with regard to the injuries
and non marking of the Accident Register, had modified the conviction to one
under Section 379 IPC.
19. It is a case of chain snatching and the accused have been caught
red handedly by the witnesses at the time of occurrence. The Courts below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence and convicted him and this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
Court finds no infirmity in the modification of conviction made by the
Appellate Court and there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the Courts
below. However, while confirming the conviction, this Court is of the opinion
that taking into consideration the long gap of eight years, it would be
appropriate to reduce the sentence.
20. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed and
while confirming the conviction for the offences, the sentence of imprisonment
alone is modified from Three Years to two years. The Bail bond if any
executed by the petitioner/accused, shall stand cancelled. The Trial court shall
take steps to secure the petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of
sentence. The period of sentence already undergone is set off under Section 428
Cr.P.C.
21. Registry is directed to return the available records to the
respective Courts.
04.02.2021
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Erode
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Kodumudi
3. The Inpector of Police
Malayampalayam Police Station
Erode District
4. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ksa-2
Crl.R.C.No.293 of 2014
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
