Madras High Court
Mohan vs State Rep. By on 4 October, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Criminal Revision Case No. 1278 of 2014
1.Mohan
2.Citi Babu @ Siva .. Revision Petitioners
Versus
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
H-4, Korukkupet Police Station,
Chennai 600 021.
Crime No.104 of 2005. .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure prayed to set aside the order of judgment dated 08.12.2014 in
Crl.A.No.56 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, arising
out of Judgment dated 27.02.2012 in C.C.No.6424 of 2005 on the file of XV
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town at Chennai convicting the petitioners under
Section 457, 380 r/w 341 IPC and sentencing the petitioners under Section 457
and to undergo one year Regrious imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
indefault of undergo two months regrious imprisonment and sentencing them
under Section 380 of IPC to undergo one year Regrious imprisonment and also
pay fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo two months Regrious imprisonment to
run concurrently.
For Petitioners : Mr.DR.G.Krishnamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case
challenging the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate George
Town at Chennai dated 08.12.2014 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2012 on the file of IV
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, arising out of Judgment dated 27.02.2012
in C.C.No.6424 of 2005 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town at
Chennai.
2.The petitioners were arrayed as an accused in C.C.No.6424 of 2005
registered for the offences under Sections 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC on the file of the
Inspector of Police, H-4, Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai. After filing of charge
sheet, the case was taken on the file by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town at Chennai.
3.Before the trial Court, the witnesses were examined and based upon the
oral and documentary evidence the petitioners were convicted for the offences
under Section 457 and sentenced them to undergo one year Regrious
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo two months regrious
imprisonment and also convicted and sentenced them under Section 380 of IPC to
undergo one year Regrious imprisonment and also pay fine of Rs.500/- indefault
to undergo two months Regrious imprisonment. However both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same they have preferred an appeal
in Crl.A.No.56 of 2012 before the IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, where
the conviction and sentence of the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioners have preferred this Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
4.Point for consideration is as to “whether both the lower and appellate
Courts have committed error in appreciating the evidence without considering the
aspect that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt ?”
5.On a perusal of the records, it reveals that to prove the charges against
the accused, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined, Ex.1
to Ex.20 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.15 material objects were filed. Charges
were framed against the petitioners under Sections 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC.
6.The case of the prosecution is that between 13.01.2005 and 17.01.2005,
while the house owner / complainant / Manohar who is residing at Door No.7/3,
Aarani Rangan Street, Korukkupet, went to his native, taking advantage of his
absence, both accused persons stolen his property by using fake key, opened the
house and taken away a sum of Rs.20,000/- with jewels.
7. To prove those charges on the side of the prosecution, the complainant
was examined as P.W.1 and his wife was examined as P.W.2 and the persons to
whom the accused pledged the said jewels the pawn brokers were examined as
P.W.3 to P.W.6 and P.W.9. Apart from that, the finger print of the accused persons
found in the articles were compared and obtained expert report marked as
Ex.P12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
8.During the trial, the Pawn Brokers were deposed that these petitioners
pledged the stolen articles and received the amount from them. Besides the
prosecution also compared the finger print of the accused persons found in the
occurrence place and obtained the report Ex.P.12 through finger print expert
Mrs.Asha and the report also reveals that the finger prints are tallied with accused
Citi Babu. The Investigating Officer, examined all these witnesses and lodged a
final report. The prosecution proved the case, based upon the material evidence
of P.W.3 to P.W.6 and P.W.9 and the finger print expert Ex.P.12 which are all
sufficient to conclude the alleged offence committed by the accused persons and
the same was confirmed by both the Courts below, so the prosecution proved
beyond the case reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition is not
maintainable. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that accused persons have no previous cases and the stolen property
also recovered, prayed to consider the same.
9.Taking into consideration the facts of the case, and the submission of the
counsel for appellant, this Court is inclined to reduce the period of sentence.
Accordingly, the one year sentence imposed for the offences each under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC is reduced to 4 month each and the sentence shall run
concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is ordered
to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
10. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed by reducing the
sentence alone.
04.10.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
rri
To
1.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.IV,
Chennai.
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate No.XV
George Town, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2014
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
Crl.R.C. No.1278 of 2014
04.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
