Madras High Court
Kumar @ Sasikumar vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 28 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
1.Kumar @ Sasikumar
2.Tamil Selvam ... Petitioners
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station,
Crime No.1123 of 2009. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, against the judgment passed in C.A.No.42 of 2011, dated
22.06.2012 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem
confirming and convicting the revision petitioners under Section 392 r/w 75 of
I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment to three years filed
against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate No.II, Salem, dated
17.03.2011 convicting from under Section 392 r/w 75 I.P.C and sentenced to
undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to set aside the above said
conviction and sentence.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.G.Udayashankar
For Respondent : Mr.L.A.J.Selvam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014 is filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem, dated 17.03.2011 in C.C.No.326 of 2009,
thereby, finding them guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with Section
75 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Salem in C.A.No.42 of 2011, dated 22.06.2012, thereby, confirming the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
2. Today, when the mater came up for hearing, Mr.M.G.Udayashankar,
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in this case,
pending the Revision, already the first petitioner in the Revision, namely Kumar
@ Sasikumar has passed away and as far as the second petitioner is concerned,
instead of considering the matter on merits, this Court will be pleased to consider
the question of sentence alone.
3. Mr.L.A.J.Selvam, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appears on behalf of the prosecution. He also produced the death certificate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
the first petitioner, in this case, from which it is clear that the first petitioner died
on 16.12.2015 pending disposal of this Revision. He would also produce a
certificate from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem, which states that the
second petitioner was in prison from 04.07.2009 to 31.12.2010 i.e., about one
year and five months.
4. I have gone through the records. In this case, the Trial Court, after
considering the evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution, namely the oral
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 and exhibits marked, namely Exs.P-1 to P-9, the
recovery of the thali chain in M.O-1, has rightly come to the conclusion about the
guilt of the accused and as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
considering the fact that the offence took place in the year 2009 and the second
petitioner is now aged 51 years and that he has shown remorse to his conduct and
that he was in jail from 04.07.2009 to 31.12.2010, I am inclined to modify the
sentence imposed on the second petitioner from the period of three years
Rigorous Imprisonment to that of the period already undergone.
5. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed accordingly.
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes
Speaking order
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
grs
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station.
Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2014
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
