Madras High Court
Dhagira @ Dhagira Bee vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 January, 2025
CRL RC. No.1296 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC. No.1296 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.15345 of 2024
Dhagira @ Dhagira Bee ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the concurrent judgment of the I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.107 of 2023 dated 08.04.2024
confirming the order dated 17.05.2023 in S.C.No.83 of 2019 on the file
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajan
for Mr.B.Vasudevan
(appeared through VC)
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 11
CRL RC. No.1296 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 11
CRL RC. No.1296 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment
made in C.A.No.107 of 2023 dated 08.04.2024 on the file of the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction
and sentence passed in S.C.No.83 of 2019 dated 17.05.2023 on the file of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant and
his wife [PW1 & PW2] are residents of Kerala; that the defacto
complainant's sister was residing in Salem; that on 05.07.2013, the
defacto complainant and his wife came to Salem and in order to return to
their native place, came to the Salem Railway Station on 08.07.2013 at
about 7.45 a.m.; that while they were waiting for the arrival of Danbad
Alapuzha Express, the petitioner along with a male introduced
themselves as married couple and that they were travelling to Shornur;
that the petitioner and her husband offered coffee; that PW1 drunk the
coffee and since PW2 refused to take coffee, the petitioner's husband
offered Mango juice and after drinking, both PW1 and PW2 fell
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unconscious; that the petitioner and her husband thereafter took away
jewels weighing 52 gms and a cell phone from the defacto complainant;
that on coming to know that PW1 and 2 were unconscious in the
compartment, they were taken to the hospital and were treated by the
railway police; that on the complaint of PW1, an FIR was registered in
Cr.No.339 of 2012 by the Salem Railway Police Station for the offences
under Sections 379, 328 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. PW8, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and after
examination of the witnesses, arrested the petitioner and filed a final
report before the jurisdictional Magistrate who thereafter, committed the
case to the Sessions Court. The case was thereafter, made over to the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. Since A1 [petitioner's
husband] was absconding, the case against him was split up and the
petitioner was tried separately by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in
S.C.No.83 of 2019.
4. The prosecution had examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and
marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22, besides one material object
[M.O.1]. The petitioner neither examined any witnesses nor marked any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents. Test Identification Report [CW1] marked as court document.
5. The trial Court found that PW1 had identified the petitioner and
also had identified the jewels recovered from the petitioner holding the
petitioner guilty of the offences under Section 328 and 394 of the IPC
and sentenced her to two years imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
each, for both the offences. The sentences imposed were directed to run
concurrently. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of
conviction and sentence. Hence, the revision.
6. Heard Mr.R.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent/State.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
evidence of PW1 cannot be believed; that the prosecution version as
regards the manner in which the investigating officer fixed the petitioner
as an accused is improbable and that the co-accused, who was tried
separately, was subsequently acquitted by the trial Court in S.C.No.79 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2022, vide judgment dated 27.09.2024 and therefore, the petitioner also
deserves to be acquitted.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra
submitted that the evidence against A1 [petitioner's husband] and the
evidence against this petitioner before the trial Court, were different and
that the acquittal of A1 would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner;
and that A1 was not identified by the witness and no recovery was made
from him. He further submitted that the Courts below had considered the
evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution in the proper perspective
and there is no reason to interfere with the same, and therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the revision.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses.
PW1 is the defacto complainant and PW2 is his wife. PW2 had
identified the accused during her examination in Court and also in the
test identification parade. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, is cogent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
convincing. They have clearly deposed that pursuant to drinking the
coffee and juice offered by the petitioner and her husband, they fell
unconscious and when they regained consciousness, they found that their
jewels and mobile phone were missing and suspected the petitioner and
her husband.
11. PW4 had deposed that the petitioner and her husband asked
him to assist them in pledging the articles and since he knew the
petitioner's husband, he assisted them.
12. PW8, the investigating officer on secret information arrested
the petitioner on 11.11.2013 and on her confession, seized the articles
from a jewellery shop along with the driving licence of the petitioner's
husband and thereafter, arrested the petitioner's husband. The witnesses
have identified the stolen articles.
13. Both the Courts below had believed the evidence of PW1 and 2
and the other witnesses and found that the prosecution has established its
case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, though, the petitioner's husband
was acquitted by the trial Court, it is seen that the witnesses had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
identified him in Court and there is no recovery from him. Therefore, the
acquittal of petitioner's husband by the trial Court, would not come to the
aid of the petitioner in any manner.
14. Therefore, this Court on perusal of the impugned judgment and
the evidence of the witnesses, finds that the judgments of the Courts
below have been passed based on a proper appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and therefore, there is no infirmity in the said
judgment.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the
petitioner, a lady, has to take care of her children; that there are no
previous cases against the petitioner; and that the sentences imposed on
her may be reduced.
16. Considering the above fact, while confirming the finding of
guilt, this Court is of the view that the sentences imposed on the
petitioner can be modified. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 328 and 394 of the IPC is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reduced and the petitioner is directed to undergo one year imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month, for each of the offences. The sentences are directed to
run concurrently. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be adjusted towards
the fine amount now imposed by this Court. The period of sentence
already undergone by the petitioner is directed to be set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C.
17. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation: Yes/No.
Issue order copy today.
ars
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem.
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Station,
Salem District.
4. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison for Women,
Sub Jail, Salem.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery order in
28.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
