Madras High Court

Srini @ Srinivasan … vs The State Rep By on 8 January, 2025

                                                                                 Crl.A.No.1457 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 08.01.2025

                                                         CORAM :

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                Crl.A.No.1457 of 2023
                                                         and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.19092 of 2023



                     Srini @ Srinivasan                                   …Appellant/Accused

                                                            vs.

                     The State Rep by:
                     Inspector of Police, (L&O)
                     Kannankuruchi Police Station,
                     Salem District.
                     Crime No.48 of 2017                           ...Respondent/Complainant



                     Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
                     1973, to set aside the order made in S.C.No.188 of 2017 dated 16.05.2023
                     on the file of the Hon'ble CJM, Salem and by allowing this Criminal
                     Appeal.

                                    For Appellant      : Ms.S.Sujatha

                                    For Respondent     : Dr.C.E.Pratap,

                                                             1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     Crl.A.No.1457 of 2023

                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                          JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant

challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment

dated 16.05.2023 in S.C.No.188 of 2017, on the file of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

2(a). It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.02.2017, at about

11.00 a.m., when the de-facto complainant was standing in the street outside

her house, the appellant/accused came on a two-wheeler and snatched a

gold chain weighing eight sovereigns from her and threatened her with dire

consequences and thus committed the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397

and 506 (ii) of the IPC.

(b) On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case was

registered on 14.02.2017 in Crime No.48 of 2017, for the offence under

Section 392 of the IPC. The case was registered by P.W.9/Special Sub

Inspector of Police, who prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P2 and

Rough Sketch/Ex.P8, and after examination of a few witnesses, handed over

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the investigation to P.W.8/Inspector of Police. P.W.8 took up the

investigation on 16.02.2017. During a routine vehicle check-up, police

intercepted a two-wheeler ridden by the appellant. The appellant tried to

escape and thereafter, the appellant was apprehended and when questioned,

he made inconsistent statements. On suspicion, he was further questioned,

and he had confessed to the commission of robbery in the presence of P.W.6

and P.W.10. The admissible portion of the confession given by the

appellant/accused was marked as Ex.P4. Thereafter, the jewel was seized

from the house of the appellant, which was kept in a cupboard. After further

examination of all other witnesses, P.W.8 filed the final report for the

offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of the IPC.

(ii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207

Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was made over to the learned

Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem for trial.

The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397

and 506(ii) of the IPC against the accused, and when questioned, the

accused pleaded 'not guilty.'

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(iii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.10, marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and marked one

material object as M.O.1. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313

Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he

denied the same. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary

evidence was let in.

(iv) The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence, acquitted the appellant for the offences under

Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of the IPC and convicted the appellant for

the offence under Section 392 of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of

rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to under

one month of simple imprisonment. Challenging the above conviction and

sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. Heard, Ms.S.Sujatha, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, and Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

victim/P.W.1 was examined in Court on 05.09.2022; that no identification

parade was conducted and therefore, her identification for the first time in

Court, after five years, cannot be believed; that three false cases were

foisted against the appellant on the very same day; and that one of the

witnesses to the confession and seizure turned hostile and the other witness,

P.W.10, has given an exaggerated version, which cannot be believed; and

hence, he prayed for acquittal.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent,

per contra, submitted that there is no reason to foist a false case against the

appellant or accuse him of possession of eight sovereigns of gold; and that

the evidence of P.W.1 and the other witnesses examined on the side of the

prosecution would conclusively establish that the appellant is guilty of the

offence under Section 392 of the IPC and therefore, the Judgment of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

trial Court does not call for any interference.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused all

the relevant materials available on record.

7. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses.

P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, whose jewel was allegedly snatched by

the appellant. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1, who corroborates the

evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 speaks about the fact that she came to know that

someone had robbed the jewel of the victim/P.W.1. P.W.4 is another

hearsay witness. P.W.5 is a witness to the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P.2.

P.W.6, a witness to the arrest and the confession, turned hostile. P.W.7 is

an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.9

is the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. P.W.10 is the

witness to the arrest of the appellant and seizure of the gold jewel from the

appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. It is seen from the above description of the witnesses that the

prosecution case rests on the evidence of P.W.1/victim, P.W.7, who

witnessed the occurrence, P.W.10, the witness to the arrest, confession and

seizure and the evidence of the investigation officer/P.W.8.

9. P.W.1 had identified the appellant during her examination. Nothing

has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve her testimony.

Further, P.W.1 had also identified the jewel that was marked as M.O.1.

P.W.7 who had witnessed the occurrence, identified the accused in Court.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his version.

Hence, the evidence of the victim and that of the eyewitness prove the

commission of robbery by the appellant. P.W.6 and P.W.10 were examined

to prove the arrest and confession of the accused and the subsequent

seizure. Though P.W.6 turned hostile, P.W.10 had supported the

prosecution case. The appellant had not cross-examined P.W.10. In such

circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution had also

established the arrest and confession of the appellant and the seizure made

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

pursuant to his confession.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions,

would submit that the appellant was in custody from 16.02.2017 to

08.11.2017; 27.04.2019 to 30.05.2019 and 01.09.2022 to till date; and that

he has suffered more than four years and six months of imprisonment so far.

11. The prosecution had not established that the appellant had not

caused any grievous hurt. Hence, the trial Court was right in convicting the

appellant for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. However,

considering the nature of the evidence let in and the fact that, apart from

three cases, including the instant case, which was registered on the same

day, there are no previous cases against the petitioner and the fact that in the

other two cases in C.C.Nos.96 and 107 of 2017 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, the appellant has already served the

sentence of imprisonment of three years, this Court is of the view that the

sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant can be reduced to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

period already undergone.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is ordered as follows:

(i) The conviction of the appellant in S.C.No.188 of 2017 by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, vide judgment dated 16.05.2023

for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC is reduced to the period already

undergone;

(ii) The fine imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section

392 of the IPC is confirmed; and

(iii) If the appellant pays the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the

aforesaid offence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is

required in connection with any other case. But, if he fails to pay the fine

amount, the default sentence shall commence from today.

13. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly

allowed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

08.01.2025

Neutral citation : yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking order dk Copy to: