Madras High Court
M.Sakthi @ Sakthivel ... Revision vs State Through on 6 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
1.Crl.R.C(MD)No.256 of 2018:-
M.Sakthi @ Sakthivel ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused No.9
Vs.
State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401
r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.6 of 2015, dated 14.03.2018,
confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.88 of
2007, dated 13.03.2015 and set aside the same by allowing the
revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
for Mr.M.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
2.Crl.R.C(MD)No.304 of 2018:-
Suresh Kumar @ Suresh ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in
connection with the Judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.
13 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment dated
13.03.2015 passed in S.C.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
3.Crl.R.C(MD)No.551 of 2018:-
N.Saravanan ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused No.2
Vs.
The State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in
C.A.No.12 of 2016, dated 14.03.2018, confirming the conviction and
sentence of imprisonment by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.88 of 2007, dated 13.03.2015 and set
aside the same by allowing the revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
COMMON ORDER
All the revisions have been filed to set aside the
Judgment made in C.A.Nos.6 of 2015, 13 of 2015 and 12 of 2016,
dated 14.03.2018, on the file of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the conviction and
sentence made in S.C.No.88 of 2007, dated 13.03.2015 on the file
of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2.All the revisions, arising out of the single trial, were
taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2001
when the defacto complainant and another were travelling in
Rameswaram to Trichy Train in S1 coach at Berth Nos.28 and 29
along with the suitcase containing 1-1/2 kgs of jewels and 165
grams of golden plates and remaining amount of Rs.4,60,000/- in
the leather bag, at that juncture, all the accused persons with an
intention to commit robbery, Accused Nos.1 to 4 entered into S1
coach, Accused Nos.5 to 8 entered into S2 coach and Accused No.9
entered into the last coach. Accused Nos.1 to 4 requested the
Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) for providing berth to them. Since
no berth was available in the said coach, they requested the TTE
and they assured that they would get down at the next station.
After TTE went to the next coach, Accused Nos.1 to 4 at knifepoint
threatened the complainant and also caused injury to his friend,
who was sleeping in the middle berth on his forehead and robbed
the chain from the neck of the defacto complainant's friend and also
robbed the golden chain from the defacto complainant. Thereafter,
they had also taken the leather bag and suit case and thrown out
the jewels from the train. After raising the alarm, the accused
persons pulled the emergency chain and get down from the train.
Simultaneously, other accused, who were traveling in the next
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
compartment, also got down from the train. Thereafter, they had
taken the leather bag along with the jewels and flew away.
4.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R
in Crime No.285 of 2001 for the offence under Section 395 r/w 397
of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a
final report for the charge under Section 395 r/w 397 of I.P.C as
against Accused No.1 to 9 and charged Accused No.10 for the
offence under Section 216(A) of I.P.C.
5.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The prosecution also
produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.12 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced.
6.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found Accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 alone guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 395 r/w 397 of I.P.C and
sentenced them to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment each
and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
year Simple Imprisonment each. Aggrieved by the same, they
preferred appeals and the same was also dismissed, confirming the
Judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same,
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 9 have preferred the present revisions.
7.The respective learned counsels appearing for the
accused would submit that the case of the prosecution is an
unbelievable one, since even according to the case of the
prosecution, only four persons have been involved in the crime.
Whereas, P.W.3 deposed that 4 to 5 persons were running from the
train after committing the offence. None of the witnesses deposed
the physical presence of the accused persons while committing the
crime. As far as Accused No.9 is concerned, P.W.24, who is an
investigating officer, arrested him on 24.12.2003 and charged him
as if he had also participated in the crime. As per the confession, he
was in possession of two ingots weighing 80 grams and the same is
with the custody of one Sreeban. Whereas, the said Sreeban was
not examined by the prosecution. The two golden ingots alleged to
have been recovered based on the information given by the accused
were also not identified by the prosecution. In fact, the identification
conducted by the prosecution was also not believable by the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
Court. Even then, mechanically convicted the petitioners and
confirmed by the Appellate Court without any piece of evidence. The
defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and his staff, who was
also travelling along with P.W.1, was examined as P.W.2. In fact,
immediately after stopping the train, the Sub-Inspector of Police
and Head Constable visited P.W.1 and P.W.2. They never disclosed
about the alleged robbery committed by the accused persons. They
got down at Trichy and they did not prefer any complaint before the
Railway Police at Trichy. After taking treatment at Rameswaram,
P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the Railway Police Station at
Rameswaram. In fact, they made a statement before the Doctor
that while they were travelling in the bus, the driver of the bus
applied a sudden brake, they hit on the seat and therefore, they
sustained an injury on his forehead. Therefore, they never disclosed
anywhere in respect of the robbery committed by the accused
except the complaint before the respondent. The prosecution failed
to prove its case beyond any doubt and prayed for acquittal of the
petitioners.
8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
order to bring the charge to home, the prosecution had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the basis of the
confession statement, recovery was also made from the accused
persons and produced before the trial Court as material objects
M.O.1 to M.O.12. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved its
case beyond any doubt and the Courts below rightly convicted the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 395 r/w 397 of
I.P.C.
9.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
10.There are totally 10 accused, in which, the Courts
below convicted Accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 and they were convicted
for the offence under Section 395 r/w 397 of I.P.C. Accused Nos.1, 2
and 9 have preferred the revisions. The occurrence occurred on
29.10.2001. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 were travelling from
Rameswaram to Trichy in Train in Coach No.S1 at Seat Nos.28 and
29 at about 11.25 p.m., the accused persons robbed the chain of
P.W.2 at knife point and also robbed the bag from P.W.2 and had
thrown out the leather bag from the train. When P.W.1 and P.W.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
raised the alarm, they pulled the emergency chain and got down.
The said complaint was lodged only on 31.10.2001, that too, before
the respondent police.
11.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 revealed that
immediately after the alleged robbery, P.W.1 did not disclose
anything about the robbery to the co-passengers and also failed to
lodge any complaint. Only after taking treatment, P.W.1 lodged the
complaint before the respondent police on 31.10.2001. After
stopping the train, the TTE examined him. However, he did not
disclose anything about the robbery committed by the accused
persons. He also did not lodge any complaint before the TTE. At that
juncture, two railway police, namely Sub-Inspector of Police and
Head Constable, also came there and enquired. Even then, P.W.1 did
not disclose the robbery and also failed to lodge any complaint. In
fact, the injury was also not disclosed to them. Though P.W.1 and
P.W.2 sustained injuries and they were treated by the Doctor, they
did not even disclose the robbery and how the injuries were
sustained by them before the Doctor. In fact, they also went to a
private hospital. No accident register was recorded and no complaint
was lodged even at Trichy. That apart, P.W.1 and P.W.2 also failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
state the number of jewels and the weight of the jewels which were
allegedly robbed by the accused persons. Further, they disclosed
before the Doctor at Trichy that the injury sustained by them,
during travelling on the bus, that too, applying the sudden brake.
P.W.2 deposed that the first accused snatched the chain and he was
standing along with the other four accused persons. When he
prevented the snatching of chain, he was stabbed by the first
accused by knife. He also deposed that they did not disclose about
the robbery and also stabbed injury to the TTE and the Railway
Police, who enquired immediately after the occurrence. Therefore,
they failed to support their own case. Insofar as the identification
parade is concerned, the learned Magistrate, who conducted the
identification parade, was examined as P.W.18. However, the
identification of the accused persons was not proved by the
prosecution and the trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed
to identify the accused persons. However, for statistical purposes,
the trial Court mechanically convicted the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 395 r/w 397 of I.P.C. It is also unfortunate
to state that the Appellate Court also mechanically confirmed the
Judgment of the trial Court by reproducing the same grounds by the
trial Court. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case
beyond any doubt and as such, the conviction under Section 395
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
r/w 397 of I.P.C as against the petitioners cannot be sustained and
it is liable to be set aside.
12.Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are
allowed and the Judgment made in C.A.Nos.6 of 2015, 13 of 2015
and 12 of 2016, dated 14.03.2018, on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram,
confirming the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.88 of 2007,
dated 13.03.2015 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Ramanathapuram, are set aside. The petitioners/Accused
Nos.1, 2 and 9 are acquitted. Bail bond if any executed by the
petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 9 shall stand cancelled and a fine
amount if paid is ordered to be refunded to the petitioners/accused
Nos.1, 2 and 9 forthwith.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Note:- Issue Order Copy on 08.06.2023.
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.256, 304 & 551 of 2018
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
