Madras High Court

Tamilarasan @ Ravi vs State Represented By on 5 January, 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 05.01.2023

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.666 of 2020

                     1.Tamilarasan @ Ravi
                     2.Senthil
                     3.Prakash @ Saravanaprakash
                     4.Ramesh                                        … Petitioners

                                                 Vs

                     State represented by
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Sathyamangalam,
                     Erode District.
                     Cr.No.636 of 2008.                                       … Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam in Crl.A.No.37 of 2019 dated 05.02.2020 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam in C.C.No.273 of 2008 dated 24.09.2019.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

For Respondent : R.Murthi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/11 ORDER

This Revision has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the order

made in Crl.A.No.37 of 2019 dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the learned

III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.

2.The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners in

Crime No.636 of 2008 for the offences under Section 394 I.P.C.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam after

completing the formalities taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.273 of

2008 and framed the charge sheet against the petitioners.

4.The specific case of the prosecution is that, on 09.09.2018 at

about 2.00 P.M. both PW1 and PW2 were waiting for the bus at

Pudukuiyanur Bus Stop. A private bus namely S.P.S. proceeding to

Sathyamangalam to Bannari was halted in the place of occurrence. Four

persons aged about 20 to 25 years emerged from the bus stop in the

waiting shed and after noticing the place, the petitioners were snatched 6

¼ sovereigns of gold chain from PW1 and PW2 and ran away from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/11 place. On hearing the noise of PW1 and PW2, PW3 and PW4 came to

the place. Subsequently, they made a complaint and also taken to the

hospital for taking treatment and after the investigation, the respondent

police laid the charge sheet.

5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial on

the side of the prosecution totally 9 witnesses were examined as PW1 to

PW9, 29 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. Besides, 4

material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4.

6.On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the guilt of the

Revision Petitioner for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. (2 counts)

and convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment

each and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo 1 month

simple imprisonment and also A1 to A4 convicted for the offence under

Section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to under go 2 years Rigorous

Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo one

month simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction

and sentence, the accused have filed the appeal before the Principal

District and sessions Judge, Erode in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/11 the same was handed over the same to the III-Additional District and

Sessions Judge for disposal. The III-Additional District and Sessions

Judge after hearing the appeal, dismissed the appeal confirming the

judgment of the trial Court.

7.Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner would submit that the

petitioners are unknown persons to the PW1 and PW2, who are

occurrence witnesses and they have stated that subsequently, they came

to know about the accused name. After mentioning the names in the

papers and even they have not properly identified the accused and further

there is contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The PW1

has stated that A1 and A2 only snatched the chain and PW2 says that A3

and A4 snatched the chain and there is material contradiction which

would go to the route of the case of the prosecution. Even before the trial,

they have stated only as unknown persons. If the accused are unknown

persons, they have to be identified in the proper manner known to the law

by conducting the identification parade. The date of occurrence was

09.09.2008, whereas, the accused was arrested on the next day itself.

Whereas, the identification parade was conducted only after a week

thereafter, where it creates suspicious that when the PW1 and PW2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/11 identified the accused for the first time in the jail and there is possibility

to show the petitioners face either in photos or in the some other manner.

Therefore the petitioners were not properly identified during the

identification parade. The trial Court unfortunately failed to appreciate

the materials and failed to consider the contradictions and erroneously

convicted the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal and the appellate

court as the final Court of fact finding, without re-appreciating his

evidence independently and given individual finding, erroneously had

confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and simply endorsed the views

of the trial Court which warrants interference of this Court.

8.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that

the PW1 and PW2 are occurrence witnesses and are also injured

witnesses. The PW3 and PW4 even during the occurrence, after hearing

the voice of PW1 and PW2, rushed to the scene of occurrence and at that

time, the petitioners herein ran away from the place of occurrence.

subsequently, a complaint was lodged and PW1 and PW2 were taken to

the hospital, recovery was also effected and accused were identified by

conducting an identification parade and PW1 and PW2 also clearly

identified the R1 to R4. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/11 the reasonable doubt by oral and documentary evidence and there is no

merits in the Revision. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the present

Revision.

9.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused

the materials available on record.

10.As already stated, the case of the prosecution is that the PW1

and PW2 were standing in the Pudukuiyanur Bus Stop and the

petitioners herein were also in the same bus stop, except PW1 and PW2

there were no one in the occurrence place. A2 and A4 snatched the chains

from PW1 and PW2 and subsequently, registered a case.

11.A careful reading of the evidence of PW1 clearly narrates the

incident and A1 and A2 only snatched the chains from them, out which

they sustained injury. The doctor who was examined as PW7, has clearly

stated that PW1 and PW2 were admitted in the hospital on the same day

and they made A.R. entry and stated that 4 unknown persons snatched

the chains from them and because of which PW1 and PW2 sustained

injury which is simple in nature and also clearly stated that 4 unknown https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/11 persons snatched the chains and therefore, they sustained injury. The

evidence of PW3 and PW4 clearly shows that immediately on hearing the

voice of PW1 and PW2, they rushed to the scene of occurrence. At that

time, the accussed were running from the occurrence place. From the

evidence of PW1 to PW4, the prosecution proved the occurrence and

from the evidence of PW7, the doctor. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 were

corroborated and the recovery witness also clearly spoken about the

recovery of the chains from the Revision Petitioners and PW1 and PW2

have identified their chain. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and

PW2, the prosecution has proved that the petitioners have committed the

offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and the trial Court has rightly

appreciated the evidence and convicted and passed sentence of

imprisonment and fine. When they have preferred an appeal, the

Appellate Court also re-appreciated and confirmed the judgment of the

trial Court and dismissed.

12.A careful perusal of the records and submissions made by both

the learned counsels appearing on either side and as the Revisional Court,

this Court does not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the

Courts below. Though in this case, the petitioners are unknown persons https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/11 to PW1 and PW2, victims, the Prosecution Agency arrested the

petitioners herein based on the complaint and conducted identification

parade through the Judicial Magistrate and identified them during the

identification parade. The occurrence was at about 1.30 p.m. ie.,during

the mid day in the open place, the PW1 and PW2 have stated that four

persons about 20 to 25 years, snatched their chain. Though they are

unknown persons, the victim on seeing identified the accused and after

arresting the petitioners, the investigation agency properly conducted the

identification parade and from the report of the learned Magistrate also

clearly proved that the identification parade was properly conducted and

the petitioners were identified by the PW1 and PW2.

13.Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court does not find any

perversity in appreciation of the evidence and in the finding of the