Madras High Court
Sekar vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:10.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.7811 of 2020
Sekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2020 in C.A.No.440 of
2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 17.09.2018 in
C.C.No.717 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murthi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated
28.07.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.440 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the order of conviction and
sentence dated 17.09.2018 passed in C.C.No.717 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.
2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner and yet
another in Crime No.1020 of 2017 for the offence under Section 392 IPC. The
petitioner herein arrayed as second accused in the said case. After investigation,
laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. The
learned Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.717 of 2017. After trial,
the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section
392 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence,
the petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the same has been taken on file in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
Crl.A.No.440 of 2018 and made over the same to the learned V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore for disposal. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, dismissed
the appeal, by confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved over the
same, the petitioner/second accused has filed the present Criminal Revision
Case before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
arrested by the respondent police after 15 days from the date of alleged
occurrence. The prosecution has not conducted identification parade and
wrongly fixed the petitioner as if he was involved in the said case. Only after
the arrest of the accused, the respondent police called P.W.1 to identify the
ornaments and during that time, P.W.1 has seen the accused in the police
station. Hence, P.W.1 identified the accused only on indication of the
respondent police. P.W.5 has exaggerated his version and there are
contradictions on material aspects in his evidence. P.W.6 said to have been
recovery witness and his evidence is also not believable. The prosecution failed
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
respondent would submit that the petitioner and other accused were involved in
this case. On 31.10.2017 at about 19.20 pm, opposite to Maharashtra Co-
operative Office at 3rd street, Tatabad, Coimbatore, while the witnesses P.W.1
and her husband were going to temple by walk, A2 riding the motor cycle and
A1 was pillion rider came in motor cycle and A1 committed robbery by
snatching the gold chain weighing about 1 ¼ sovereign from the neck of P.W.1
and escaped in motor cycle and thereby they committed offence punishable
under Section 392 IPC. The defacto-complainant was examined as P.W.1 and
she has categorically stated about the entire incident. Husband of P.W.1 was
examined as P.W.2. Son of P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as P.W.3, who is a
hearsay witness. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is very clear
that the petitioner was involved in the abovesaid offence. He handed over the
jewel at the time of arrest. The petitioner in his confession statement has
admitted the abovesaid occurrence. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested by
the respondent police and the defacto-complainant also identified the
petitioner. The petitioner himself admitted that he has committed offence as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
stated above. P.W.6 has deposed about the arrest of the accused and the
recovery of the material. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 ,2 and P.W.6, the trial
court proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted
the revision petitioner. Revision Court cannot traverse beyond the scope of the
revision. Scope of revision is very very limited, it cannot go deep and re-
appreciate each and every evidence and it can see only the perversity in
appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1. On a reading of entire materials,
especially evidence of P.Ws.1 , 2 and P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P6, this Court does
not find perversity in appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below and
there is no merit in the Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.01.2023
mfa
Index:yes/No
Internet:yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa
To
1. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.7811 of 2020
10.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
