Madras High Court
Meenakshi vs State Rep.By Sub Inspector Of Police 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.508 and 671 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6883 of 2024 in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.671 of 2024
Crl.R.C(MD).No.508 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.999 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.55 of 2023 dated 31.05.2023 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kumbakonam and confirmed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2023 vide
Judgment dated 12.12.2023.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sekar
for Mr.P.Manimaran
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
Crl.R.C(MD).No.671 of 2024:
Reka ... Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused No.2
Vs.
The State Represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
West Police Station,
Kumbakonam,
Crime No.999 of 2022 ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 (1) r/w
401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated
112.12.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.199 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed
upon the Petitioner in C.C.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ilayaraja
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
2/18
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 of by way of this
common order.
2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No. 55 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District have filed this
criminal revision challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them.
Which was also confirmed in Crl.A.No. 199 of 2023 by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and the details are as follows :-
SL. Crl. Rank of the C.C. Crl.A. Charges Punishment
No. RC. (MD). accused and No. No. proved under (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. Name sections
A-1 U/s.379 IPC Two years rigorous
Meenakshi imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo further simple
55 199 imprisonment for one month.
A-2 /2023 /2023 U/s.379 r/w Rigorous imprisonment for
Reka 109 of IPC one year and fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo further simple
imprisonment for one month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
3. Case of the prosecution:-
On 18.12.2022 at about 10.30 a.m., PW1 came to Kumbakonam from
Nachiyarkovil to purchase jewels. At Kumbakonam bus stand, when PW1 and
his relative alighted from the bus, few ladies also got down from the bus after
hitting them and before they could realise the same, they found that Rs.30,000/-
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 tab on the movement of the suspects relating to
the above occurrence in the Kumbakonam New bus stand and at that time they
found strange movement of the petitioners and they disclosed fictitious
residential address and thereafter the admitted that had come from Andhra
Pradesh. Subsequently, they gave confession and the same was recorded and
thereafter they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently in
their confession they disclosed their further involvement in similar thefts in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
bus with the same modus operendi that A1 stole the gold articles and money
from the passengers and she would transfer to A2 and A2 would pass on to A3
and then they would divide the proceeds. They also admitted their involvement
in the case on the file of Kumbakonam police station in similar occurrence in
Crime Nos. 997 of 2022 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
A2 and A3 were found out. The admitted portion of the confession was Ex.P.10.
Further, recovery of Rs.30,000/- was effected in the residence of A1's relative
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 was
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
against A1 and 379 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. against A2 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 previous cases
and having 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
Nos. 2 and 3 filed in Crl.A.No. 241 of 2023 on the file 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, he seeks for acquittal.
8.The learned counsel for A1 submitted that one of the recovery witnesses
turned hostile and hence, recovery was not proved. Even the other recovery
witness has not deposed that money was recovered in his presence. He admitted
his presence only in the relative's 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 he seeks for
acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
9. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that
the petitioners have number of previous cases and they have followed innovative
method of committing theft in the buses with active participation using the
following modus operendi:
A1 would commit theft of properties from the passengers and she would
transfer the same to A2 and A2 would further 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 strange company in the bus
stand and they were jointly seen active in the bus stand. They were jointly
arrested and they made 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 witnesses partly turned
hostile, but he affirmatively deposed about the disclosure statement of A1 and he
and the officers went to the house of relative of A1 and recovery was made.
Other recovery witnesses clearly deposed about the recovery made on the basis
of the confession of A1. Therefore, both courts below convicted the accused and
considering the number of previous cases and the earlier conviction for similar
offence, imposed the maximum punishment of three years rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
imprisonment. Hence, there is no circumstance to interfere with. He further
humbly prayed that they are habitual offenders committing similar type of theft
in the public transport vehicle targeting marginal people, gullible poor people
who are 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 the
confirmation of the maximum sentence imposed by the both the courts in the
interest of the society.
10. This court considered rival submissions and perused the 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 followed by the accused as explained by the
learned additional public prosecutor shocks the judicial conscience of this court.
The accused all teamed up together and they boarded the bus. One of them
looted the article of the passengers in clandestine manner and transfer the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
to the other accused and other accused further passed on to another accused and
each accused alighted separately and created a scene as if they were no way
connected with each other. After the occurrence, they have divided 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 queer company in the bus stand on
18.12.2022. They were enquired by PW5 and the accused made contradictory
statement regarding their residence. Finally, they disclosed about their nativity as
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information
furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz and other
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 has 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 trust worthy. 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 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 if 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 Attat Singh vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (11) SCC 719 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has hald 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 forceful submission was made about the one day delay of FIR in
reaching the magistrate court. The said delay is not material when the FIR itself
was registered against 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 odd company in the bus stand
and the recovery made 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 circumstance to interfere with the concurrent
finding. In the said circumstance, the conviction passed by 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 cases in various police stations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
Accused Section CrimeNo. Police Station
A-1. U/Sec.379 IPC 82/2015 Malayampalayam Police Station,
Mrs.Meenatchi Erode.
W/o. Balaji
U/Sec.379 IPC 999/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379 IPC 997/2022 West Police Station, Kumbakonam
U/Sec.379 IPC 1197/2021 West Police Station,Thanjavur
U/Sec.379 IPC 186/2017 Thottiyam Police Station,Trichy
U/Sec.379 IPC 498/2017 Fort Police Station,Trichy
A-2. U/Sec.379IPC 154/2005 Ammayanaickanur Police Station,
Mrs. Reka Dindigul
W/o.Siranjeevi
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.420 IPC 742/2021 Fort Police Station,Trichy
@380 IPC
20. In view of the above circumstances, this court finds no reason to
interfere with the sentence of imprisonment also. In the 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
petitioner and confine them in prison to undergo the remaining part of sentence
imposed in 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 Sub Inspector of Police,
West Police Station,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. 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.508 and 671 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6883 of 2024 in
28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:44:38 pm )
