Madras High Court
Manikandan @ Manibharathi vs State Represented By on 2 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.No.14657 of 2019
Manikandan @ Manibharathi ...Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station,
Block 8, Neyveli. ...Respondent
Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the
IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam, in Crl.A.No.43
of 2017 confirming the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Neyveli, in S.C.No.136 of 2015.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Mano for
M/s.EAadith Vijay
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
--------
ORDER
The criminal revision case has been filed against the concurrent
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2017 passed by the IIIrd
Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam, in Crl.A.No.43 of
2017 confirming the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Neyveli, in S.C.No.136 of 2015.
2 Case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2015 at about 11.00
a.m., when the defacto complainant P.W.1 went to a Petty Shop near
Vadakuthu Bus Stop, the petitioner/accused waylaid him and on the knife
point, the petitioner/accused robbed cash of Rs.1000/-, one Cell Phone and
a Watch by threatening with dire consequences and when the witnesses tried
to catch him, the petitioner/accused threatened them by showing the knife
and the two Police officials, who were on the duty at the time of occurrence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
chased and caught the petitioner/accused. Thereafter on the basis of the
complaint lodged by P.W.1, the present case was registered against the
petitioner.
3 After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a
charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341, 398
and 394 of IPC before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Neyveli, which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.19 of 2015. The learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, since the case was triable
only the Court of Session, committed the case to the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, which was taken on file in
S.C.No.136 of 2015 and subsequently the same was made over to the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyveli,. The learned Assistant Sessions,
on completion of trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either side, by
judgment dated 21.04.2017, acquitted the petitioner for the offence under
Section 398, but, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
month for the offence under Section 341 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the
offence under Section 394 of IPC.
5 Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioner had filed an appeal in C.A.No.43 of 2017. The learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (FAC), Vridhachalam, after hearing
both the parties, by, judgment dated 10.11.2017, confirmed the conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, present revision has
been filed by the petitioner.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that prosecution has not produced any medical certificate or wound
certificate of the injured witness and hence medical evidence does not
support the case of the prosecution. Both the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court had failed to see that the ingredients of Section 394 of IPC
are not made out and the offence alleged to have committed by the
petitioner is not all falls under Section 394 of IPC and it comes only under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
Section 392 of IPC. Hence convicting the petitioner for the offence under
Section 394 of IPC is not sustainable under the eye of law and the same is
liable to be set aside.
7 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police would submit that P.W.1 is the eye witness as well as the
injured witness and he clearly deposed that the petitioner is the one who
committed robbery on the knife point and when P.W.3, the police official
tried to catch him, the petitioner caused cut injuries on him. P.W.12, the
Doctor, has clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the witnesses,
which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. Prosecution has clearly
proved the charges against the petitioner and the trial Court as well as the
lower appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and convicted the petitioner, which does not call for any
interference of this Court.
8 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
the materials available on record.
9 This Court, as a revisional Court, cannot exercise power of
appellate Court and re-appreciate entire evidence, it can only see whether
there is any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below,
while deciding the case.
10 On a perusal of the records, it reveal that P.Ws.1 is injured
witness and also an eye witness and he has clearly spoken about the offence
of robbery committed by the petitioner. From the evidence of independent
witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 8 prospection has clearly proved the offence
committed by the petitioner. A combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1,
2, 3, 7, 8, 12 and the medical records Ex.P11 and the material objects, this
Court is of the view that prosecution has clearly established its case beyond
all reasonable doubts. The trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner
and the lower appellate Court, being a final Court of fact finding, had
independently re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the
conviction recorded by the trial Court. This Court does not find any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
perversity in the judgment of both the Courts below and hence the same
does not call for any interference. Further, there is no mitigating
circumstances to consider the quantum of sentence.
11 In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts
below is hereby confirmed. The criminal revision is dismissed and the trial
Court is directed to secure the petitioner to undergo remaining period of
imprisonment, if any. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
02.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
cgi
To
1. The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Neyveli.
3.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station,
Block 8, Neyveli.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.1081 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.No.14657 of 2019
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
