Madras High Court
Manikandan vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... on 17 October, 2022
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
Manikandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur District.
(Crime No.269 of 2015) ... Respondent
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and allow the Criminal Revision by set aside the
judgment dated 02.02.2018 in C.A.No.3 of 2017 before the Principal Sessions
Judge, Perambalur, partly modified the judgment in C.C.No.189 of 2015 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur, by judgment dated
13.03.2017.
For Petitioner : Ms.Sumithra Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed directed as against the judgment
passed in C.A.No.3 of 2017 dated 02.02.2018 on the file of the Principal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
Sessions Judge, Perambalur, thereby modifying the sentence passed in
C.C.No.189 of 2015 dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Perambalur, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence under
Section 393 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.03.2015, at about 4.00 a.m,
while PW1 was sleeping in a cot outside her house, the accused came and
committed robbery of her ''Tahali Chain''. Immediately, she shouted and
informed to PWs4 and 5, and thereafter, with the help of police persons, the
accused was caught hold and came to be registered FIR. After completion of
investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken
cognizance for the offence under Section 393 IPC.
3. On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to PW8 were examined as
witnesses and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked as exhibits and on the side of the
petitioner no one was examined and no document was marked.
4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found
the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 393 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal and the
same was partly allowed while the conviction was confirmed, the sentence was
modified by reducing it to one year. Hence the revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the PW1
deposed that she signed a report at 10.00 a.m in the Police Station, the PW8
deposed that PW1 came to the Police Station at 5.30 a.m and lodged
complaint. There was contradiction between them in respect of lodgment of the
complaint. There were two versions adduced by the prosecution, one version
through the evidence of PW1 to 3 and another version through evidence of
PWs4 and PW5 that they caught hold of the accused and handed over him to
police. Therefore, the arrest of the accused is doubtful and benefit of doubt
should go to the accused. The time of occurrence also differs from the evidence
of PWs4 and 5 and therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
any reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that even according to the prosecution, the petitioner only attempted to commit
robbery and immediately, he was caught hold and that he has no previous
antecedents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that in
order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs4 an 5 were examined. They
categorically proved the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt. He
would submit that the petitioner is not involved in any case except the present
one.
7. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
8. On perusal of deposition of PW1, she categorically deposed that while
she was sleeping outside her house, the petitioner came near to her and after
closing her mouth, he attempted to take away her ''Thali chain''. Immediately,
she shouted and informed to PWs4 and PW5. PW3 had deposed that when
PW1 shouted, he rushed to the place of occurrence and chased the accused. It
is also corroborated by PW5. There was small contradiction with regard to
time. It would not affect the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court
rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 393 IPC.
9. Considering the initiatives of the petitioner, the trial Court reduced the
sentence from two years to one year. Therefore, the Court below rightly
sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year imprisonment. Further, in so far as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
the sentence is concerned, the petitioner had already undergone more than a
period of one month. That apart, the respondent stated that so far, the petitioner
was not involved in any case and he has no previous antecedents. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence alone by confirming the conviction
for the offence under Section 393 IPC.
10. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the petitioner is hereby
confirmed and in so far as the sentence is concerned, it is reduced upto the
period which he had already undergone and a sum of Rs.25,000/- is hereby
awarded as compensation payable by the petitioner herein by way of Demand
Draft to PW1. He should produce the acknowledgment before the trial Court
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
failing which, the sentence imposed by the first Appellate Court would vest
therewith and the respondent is directed to secure the petitioner and proceed in
accordance with law to undergo remaining sentence.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is partly allowed.
17.10.2022
ata
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.282 of 2018
ata
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Perambalur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Perambalur.
Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2018
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
