Madras High Court
Dhandapani vs The State on 27 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 27.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.2294 and 2295 of 2019
Dhandapani ... Petitioner/ Appellant / Sole Accused
vs.
The State,
Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police,
Karur ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 01.08.2018 made in
C.A.No.149 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional District Judge,
Karur confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.131 of
2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, dated
04.09.2017, sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate(Criminal Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
Judgment dated 01.08.2018 made in C.A.No.149 of 2017 on the file of
learned Additional District Judge, Karur confirming the judgment and
sentence passed in C.C.No.131 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Karur, dated 04.09.2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2015 at about 09.15
p.m., the de-facto complainant parked his two wheeler, viz., Passion Pro
bearing Registration No.TN-47-U-4772. It was stolen by the accused.
Based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the
respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.864 of 2015 for the
offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the respondent filed the final report and the same has been
taken cognizance by the trial Court.
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.5
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and also produced M.O.1. On the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.149 of 2017
on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Karur and the Appellate
Court also dismissed the appeal on 01.08.2018 and thereby, confirming
the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence,
the present revision.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was caught hold by P.W.5 along with the Passion Pro two
wheeler on 09.12.2015. The occurrence took place on 11.05.2015 and
thereafter, on 09.12.2015, the present case along with two other FIRs
were registered by the respondent police against the petitioner. In any
single case, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodgment of
complaint. The confession statement of the petitioner was recorded by
P.W.5 only in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. However,
another witness one Prakash was not able to examine by the prosecution.
Therefore, there was absolutely no corroboration in order to prove the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
confession statement which was examined in the presence of P.W.3. In
fact, the prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of three
motorcycles, since no motorcycle is found with cogent number. The
petitioner sofar has been incarceration for a period of three months.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any doubt
and the petitioner is liable to be acquitted.
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that there was recovery from the petitioner and the vehicle was
duly identified by the de-facto complainant. Though on 09.12.2015 all
the three cases were registered, the recoveries in all the cases clearly lead
to the confession. Therefore, the prosecution prove its case beyond any
doubt and both the Courts below rightly and concurrently held that the
petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC.
Therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
8.Admittedly on 09.12.2015, the First Information Report was
registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. The de-facto
complainant was examined as P.W.1. In support of his contention, P.W.2
was examined by the prosecution, who is none other than the friend of
P.W.1. The de-facto complainant lodged complaint alleging that his two
wheeler was misplaced on 11.05.2015 itself and he lodged a complaint
only on 09.12.2015 and on the same day, other two First Information
Reports were registered in Crime No.862 and 863 of 2015 against the
petitioner for the very same offence under Section 379 of IPC. On the
confession statement of the petitioner, the vehicle was also recovered
from him in the presence of P.W.3. P.W.3 categorically supported the case
of the prosecution. Therefore, though the respondent registered the three
FIRs on the same day, on his confession, there was recovery in the
presence of P.W.3, another witness confession was not examined by the
prosecution. It is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since one of the
witness averred confession statement categorically deposed that the
recovery was made from him. All the three two wheelers were duly
recognized by P.W.1 in all the cases. The friend of P.W.1 was examined
as P.W.2 and he supported the case of the prosecution and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.2. However, the de-facto
complainant has failed to explain the delay in lodgment of complaint.
Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner
and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
Courts below.
9.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to reduce the sentence imposed by the Courts below as to the
period already undergone by the petitioner.
10.In view of the above, the conviction imposed by the Courts
below for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, is hereby
confirmed and the sentence imposed by the Courts below is hereby
modified to the period which was already undergone by the petitioner.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.06.2023
sji
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Karur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Karur.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.139 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
sji
Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 139 of 2019
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
