Madras High Court
Reka vs The State Represented By on 28 April, 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.04.2025
Pronounced on : 28.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C.(MD). Nos. 590, 506 and 546 of 2024
Crl.R.C(MD).No.590 of 2024:
Reka ... Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused No.2
Vs.
The State Represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
West Police Station,
Kumbakonam,
Crime No.997 of 2022 ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence
passed by virtue of Judgment in C.C.No.57 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kumbakonam and confirmed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2023 vide
Judgment dated 10.04.2024.
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ilayaraja
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
Crl.R.C(MD).No.506 of 2024:
Meenakshi
(Now confined in Special Prison for Women,
Trichy) ... Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused No.1
Vs.
State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam West Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Cr.No.997 of 2022) ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence
passed in C.C.No.57 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Kumbakonam and confirmed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2024 dated 10.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sekar
for Mr.P.Manimaran
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD).No.546 of 2024:
Gomathi ... Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused No.3
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam,
West Police Station,
Crime No.997 of 2022 ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence
passed by virtue of Judgment in C.C.No.57 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kumbakonam and confirmed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2023 vide
Judgment dated 10.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy
for Mr.S.Sankar
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
COMMON ORDER
Since these criminal revision cases are arising out of the same crime,
these cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed by way of this
common order.
2.Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No. 57 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District have filed this
criminal revisions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them
confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.A.No. 241
of 2023 and Crl.A.No. 43 of 2024 and the details are as follows :-
SL. Crl.RC. Rank of the C.C. Crl.A. Charges Punishment
No. (MD).No. accused and No. No. proved (Imprisonment and Fine)
Name under
sections
1 590/2024 A-2 U/s.379 Rigorous imprisonment for a
Reka r/w 109 of period of three years each and
2 546/2024 A-3 57 241/ IPC to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each,
Gomathi /2023 2023 U/s.379 in default to undergo further
r/w 109 of simple imprisonment for two
IPC months each for that offence.
3 506/2024 A-1 57 43 U/s.379 of Three years rigorous
Meenakshi /2023 /2024 IPC imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo further simple
imprisonment for two
months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
3. Case of the Prosecution :-
On 17.12.2022 at about 06.30 p.m., when PW1 came to Kumbakonam
from Nagapattinam and she went to Venkataraman Sweet Stall in Kumbakonam
bus stand and she noticed that her purse with Rs.40,000/-, key and ATM card
was missing. Immediately she lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 to the
respondent police. PW5 on receipt of the complaint registered the case on the
same day in Crime No.997 of 2022 under section 379 of I.P.C. against unknown
person. After registration of FIR under Ex.P7, PW5 went to the occurrence place
and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P8 and rough sketch Ex.P9 in the presence
of PW2 and PW3 at 08.40 p.m. on 17.12.2022. On 18.12.2022 PW5 and other
officers were keeping tabs on the movement of the suspects relating to the above
occurrence in Kumbakonam New bus stand and at that time they found strange
movement of the petitioners and they disclosed fictitious residential address and
thereafter they admitted that they had come from Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently,
they gave confession and the same was recorded and they were arrested and
remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently in their confession they also
disclosed about their involvement in the similar thefts in the bus with the same
modus operendi that A1 would steal the gold articles/money from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
passengers and she would transfer to the A2 and A2 would pass on to A3 and
then, they would divide the proceeds. They also admitted their involvement
within the jurisdiction of Kumbakonam police station in similar occurrences in
Crime Nos.1197 of 2021 and 999 of 2022. In the evening they were asked to
come to the police station and in the police station, A1 and A2 admitted that they
committed theft of amount and the amount of Rs.20,300/- was recovered in the
presence of PW5. The remand report also shows the said crime numbers.
4.The Learned Judicial Magistrate granted police custody and during their
custody A1 gave confession. On the basis of the confession, the involvement of
the A2 and A3 also was discovered. The admitted portion of the confession was
Ex.P.10. Further, recovery of Rs.30,000/- was effected in the residence place of
A1 relative house situated at Chinna Salem under the recovery mahazar Ex.P.11.
The said recovery was made by PW6 in the presence of PW4 and PW8. The
recovery mahazars were marked as Ex.P13 and Ex.P14. Thereafter, the recovered
money was identified by PW1 and investigation was completed by the
investigating officer PW6 and he filed the final report on 16.02.2023. The
Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam took it on file in C.C.No. 57 of
2023 under section 379 of I.P.C. agaisnt A1 and 379 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. against A2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
and A3. Thereafter summoned the accused and served the copies under section
207 of Cr.P.C. to them and framed the necessary charges and questioned them
and they pleaded not guilty and they stood for trial.
5. The prosecution to prove the case examined PW1 to PW7 and marked
Ex.P1 to P14. The Learned Trial Judge questioned the accused under section 313
of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available against them in the
prosecution evidence and documents. They denied as false. On the side of the
accused, neither witness was examined nor documents were marked.
6.The Learned Trial judge after considering the evidence and documents
and the answer given by the accused during the 313 questioning convicted the
accused under section 379 of I.P.C. The Learned Trial Judge accepted the case of
the prosecution that the accused are habitual offenders and had the previous
cases and also have been convicted for similar occurrence in C.C.No. 55 of
2023, imposed the maximum punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of two months simple
imprisonment. Challenging the same accused No.1 filed the appeal No. 43 of
2024 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed appeal in Crl.A.No. 241 of 2023 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
of the principal sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The appellate court also confirmed
the same and aggrieved over the same, the accused filed the above revisions.
7.The Learned counsel for A2 and A3 submitted that except the confession
of A1, no other material is available to implicate them. Further, the charge
against them is 379 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. Even as per the prosecution case, recovery
was made only from A1 and on the basis of confession of A1 they were falsely
implicated. Therefore, they sought for acquittal.
8.The learned counsel for A1 submitted that one of the recovery witness
turned hostile and hence recovery was not proved. Even other recovery witness
has not deposed that money was recovered in his presence. He admitted his
presence only in the relative house of A1 and hence his evidence no way helps
the prosecution to prove the recovery. Having failed to prove the recovery no
other incriminating material is available against her and hence she seeks for
acquittal.
9.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the
petitioners have number of previous cases and they have followed innovative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
method of committing theft in the buses with active participation using the
following modus operendi:
A1 would commit theft from the passengers and she would transfer the
same to the A2 and A2 would pass on to A3 and A3 would leave the place and
pose as if they were no way connected with each other. After the occurrence,
they would meet together and divide the proceeds of the theft. In the said
circumstances PW5 clearly deposed about their suspicious company in the bus
stand and they were seen together in the bus stand. They were jointly arrested
and they made the confession about the modus operendi. Hence the prosecution
clearly proved the case. The recovery was made and the same was identified by
PW1. Even though one of the recovery witness partly turned hostile, but he
affirmatively deposed that the disclosure statement of the A1 and he and the
officers went to the house of relative of A1 and recovery was made. Other
recovery witness clearly deposed about the recovery made on the basis of the
confession of A1. Therefore, both courts below convicted the accused and
considering the previous antecedents and the earlier conviction for similar
offence, imposed the maximum punishment of three years rigorous
imprisonment. Hence, there is no circumstance to interfere with. He further
prayed that they are habitual offenders committing similar type of theft in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
public transport vehicle marginal people gullible poor passenger who were
travelling in the bus and they are seriously affected due to their unending theft in
the bus and various places and hence he seeks for confirmation of the maximum
sentence imposed by both the Courts in the interest of the society.
10. This Court considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on records and the
impugned judgment.
11.Now the question in these revisions is whether the conviction and the
maximum sentence imposed against the petitioners under section 379 of I.P.C.
And 379 r/w.109 of I.P.C. is legally correct?
12. The modus operendi of the occurrence as explained by the learned
additional public prosecutor shocks the judicial conscience of this court. The
accused all would team up and they board the bus. One of them looted the article
of the passengers in clandestine manner and transfer the same to the other
accused and other accused would pass on to another accused and each accused
alighted separately and created a scene as if they were no way connected with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
each other. After the occurrence, they would divide the proceeds of the theft. In
this type of modus operendi, the burden of the prosecution is to prove their
strange and weird company in the bus stand in suspicious manner. In this case
PW5 clearly deposed about their suspicious company in the bus stand on
18.12.2022. They were enquired by PW5 and accused made the contradictory
statement regarding their residence. Finally they disclosed about their nativity of
Andhra Pradesh. This is the material circumstance to legitimately infer their
involvement in the occurrence. A1 gave categorical disclosure statement about
the involvement of A2 and A3. The said disclosure statement was legally proved.
The same is admissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016 14 SCC 640:
13. For application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found
as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery,
only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In
a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from
the accused which was not in the knowledge of the police
before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is
admissible in the evidence.
15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information
furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
accused, Anju Ali was arrested. The fact that Anju Ali was
dealing with forged currency notes was not to the knowledge
of the police. The statement of both the accused has led to
discovery of fact and arrest of co-accused not known to
police. They identified him and ultimately statements have
led to unearthing the racket of use of fake currency notes.
Thus the information furnished by the aforesaid accused
persons vide information memos is clearly admissible which
has led to the identification and arrest of accused Anju Ali
and as already stated from possession of Anju Ali fake
currency notes had been recovered. As per information
furnished by accused Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Exts.
P-41 and P-42, the fact has been discovered by police as to
the involvement of accused Anju Ali which was not to the
knowledge of the police. Police was not aware of accused
Anju Ali as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake
currency notes which were recovered from him. Thus the
statement of the aforesaid accused Mehboob and Firoz is
clearly saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo
put by Section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the
instant case. The statement of the accused persons has led to
the discovery of fact proving complicity of the other accused
persons and the entire chain of circumstances clearly makes
out that the accused acted in conspiracy as found by the trial
court as well as the High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
Therefore, both the courts below had correctly accepted the said disclosure
statement, which is proved through the cogent and trustworthy evidence. Hence,
this court sees no reason to set aside the said concurrent finding.
13.The involvement of A2 and A3 is proved on the basis of the disclosure
statement of A1 coupled with their strange company in the bus stand during the
previous day occurrence of the theft of PW1's articles has happened. Their false
disclosure about the address of their residence also is another incriminating
circumstance.
14. PW5 clearly deposed about the involvement of all the accused and his
evidence is cogent and trustworthy. There is no suggestion that he had motive
against the accused to falsely implicate them in the above case.
15.Even though one of the recovery witnesses partly turned hostile, but his
evidence relating to the disclosure statement and the arrival to A1's relative's
house along with A1 is corroborated by the evidence of the another recovery
witness and the officer PW6 also clearly deposed about the disclosure statement.
In these type of cases even one of the recovery witnesses partly turned hostile,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
there is no legal impediment to believe the evidence of PW6 and the same has
been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh vs. State
of Maharastra reported in 2013 11 SCC 719 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that If some portion of the statement of hostile witness inspires confidence,
it can be relied upon and also if the evidence of said hostile witness is
corroborated by other evidence there is no legal bar to convict the accused.
16. A stress was made about the one day delay of FIR reaching the
magistrate court. The said delay is not material when the FIR itself was
registered against the unknown person and also there was no cross examination
relating to the delay and also no prejudice was established as required under the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jafel Biswas
vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 (12) SCC 560. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that mere delay in sending report itself cannot lead to the
conclusion that trial is vitiated or the accused is entitled to be acquitted on the
ground that FIR has been registered much later in time than shown. Also it is
held that the accused has to prove prejudice was caused to him due to the
delayed despatch of FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
17. The accused have not explained their unusual company in the bus
stand and about the recovery during their 313 of Cr.P.C. questioning. Enough
evidence is available to show that the accused are partners in crime.
18. Therefore in all the aspects the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and the same has been properly considered by the both the
courts below and there is no circumstances to interfere with the concurrent
finding. In the said circumstance the conviction passed by the both the courts
below under section 379 of I.P.C against A1 and 379 r/w. 109 of I.P.C against
A2 and A3 is legally correct and this court is inclined to confirm the same.
19. So far as the sentence of imprisonment of maximum period of
imprisonment is concerned, the learned trial judge has taken into account the
previous conviction in C.C.No. 55 of 2023 for the similar offence and also the
following previous antecedents in various police stations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
Accused Section Crime Police Station
No.
A-1.Mrs.Meenatchi U/Sec.379IPC 82/2015 Malayampalayam Police Station,
W/o Balaji Erode.
U/Sec.379IPC 999/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379IPC 997/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379IPC 1197/202 West Police Station,Thanjavur
U/Sec.379IPC 186/2017 Thottiyam Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec.379IPC 498/2017 Fort Police Station,Trichy
A-2. Mrs. Reka U/Sec.379IPC 154/2005 Ammayanaickanur Police Station,
W/oSiranjeevi Dindigul
U/Sec.379IPC 999/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379IPC 997/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379IPC 865/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec.379IPC 864/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec.379IPC 863/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec.379IPC 862/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec. 742/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
420IPC@380 IPC
A-3.Mrs.Gomathi U/Sec.379IPC 429/2006 Velankanni Police station, Velankanni
W/o Mahesh U/Sec.379IPC 999/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379IPC 997/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
20. In view of the above circumstances this court finds no reason to
interfere with the sentence of imprisonment also. In result this court finds no
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and all the
revisions deserve to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
21. Accordingly, all revisions are dismissed. The bail bond executed by the
petitioner is cancelled and the respondent police is directed to secure the
petitioners and confine in prison to undergo their remaining period of sentence
imposed in the C.C.No. 57 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kumbakonam by order dated 09.10.2023. The connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.Post the matter for reporting compliance on 23.06.2025.
28.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam, West Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4. The Sub Inspector of Police,
West Police Station,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Pre-delivery common order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD). Nos. 590, 546 and 506 of 2024
28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
