Madras High Court
S.Saroja vs State Rep By on 20 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
S.Saroja ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by
Sub Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Tuticorin. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the Lower Courts
and to duly set-aside the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District in C.A.No.26 of 2015 dated
18.11.2015 in confirming the Judgement of the Judicial Magistrate No.2
Tuticorin in C.C.No.33/2003 dated 15.04.2015 by allowing this revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Senthil
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District in C.A.No.26 of 2015 dated 18.11.2015 confirming the
Judgement of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 Tuticorin in C.C.No.33 of
2003 dated 15.04.2015.
2.The case of the prosecution is that from the year 1997 to 2022,
the first accused was working as Sales Man in the defacto complainant's
AVM jewelry shop. He had stolen 2,065 grams gold worth about
Rs.10,32,500/-. Thereafter, even knowing those jewels were stolen, A2
and A3 received the same and they used to pledge some jewels and sold
out some jewels. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto
complainant, the respondent registered a case in Cr.No.633 of 2002.
After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and
the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.33 of 2003 for the offence
punishable under Sections 381 and 414 IPC. Insofar as he petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
herein is concerned, she was charged under Section 414 IPC. In order to
prove the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and
marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B24. No Documents has been marked by either
side. On the side of the accused, no one was examined. On perusal of
oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, convicted the first
accused for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and sentenced
him to undergo three years rigourous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- , in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and
also convicted the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under
Section 414 IPC and sentenced her to undergo one year rigourous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six
months simple imprisonment. Insofar as the third accused is concerned,
he was acquitted by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the
appellate Court confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court.
Hence, the present revision.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner now aged about 67 years and she already undergone 40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
days of imprisonment. At the time of seizing of jewels from the
petitioner, there were two witnesses. However, the prosecution failed to
examine one witness and only one person was examined by the
prosecution. Therefore, he prayed for reduction of sentence.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent would submit that on recording the confession
statement of the first accused, the petitioner herein was found in
possession of jewels, which were stolen by the first accused. The third
accused was acquitted only for the reason that he is none other than the
son of the petitioner herein. He was also present along with her, at the
time of seizure of the jewels. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted
the third accused. As far as the petitioner herein is concerned, after
recovery of all jewels, she was taken to her house wherein the first
accused was also present. Therefore, the prosecution categorically
proved its case beyond any doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 IPC.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
record.
6.It is seen that there are totally three accused in this case, in
which, the petitioner herein arrayed as A2. According to the case of the
prosecution, the first accused had stolen jewels from the defacto
complainant's jewelry shop weighing 2,065 grams gold worth about
Rs.10,32,500/-. The petitioner had received the jewels from A1 in order
to sold out and had taken share in the sale proceedings with A1.
Therefore, the petitioner charged for the offence punishable under
Section 414 IPC. P.Ws.3, 9, 11 and 12 were turned hostile. The first
accused was working as Sales Man in the defacto complainant's jewelry
shop. On confession of the first accused, the petitioner herein had been
implicated as accused and there was recovery. P.Ws.3 and 4 were spoke
about the observation magazar. Reading the evidence of P.W.8, he
categorically stated that when the petitioner was standing, in a suspecting
manner, opposite to the flower shop, near Police Station and when P.W.8
enquired her, she herself handed over the jewels, which was possessed
by her. Therefore, the possession and recovery were proved by the
prosecution. Therefore, both Courts below rightly convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 IPC and hence,
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the
Courts below. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Considering the
age of the petitioner and also the fact that A1 was died, this Court is
inclined to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by her.
Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the
conviction under Section 414 IPC is hereby confirmed and the sentence
alone reduce from one year rigorous imprisonment to the period already
undergone by the petitioner.
20.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
To
1. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Tuticorin.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Tuticorin.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Tuticorin.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
gns
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2016
20.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
