Skip to content


M. Chinnadurai Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Namakkal District - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl.R.C.No. 437 of 2011
Judge
AppellantM. Chinnadurai
RespondentThe State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Namakkal District
Excerpt:
.....examined p.ws.1 to 6 marked ex.p1 to 5 and exhibited m.os.1 and 2. 4. appreciating the said evidence, trial court found the accused guilty under section 392 r/w 397 i.p.c. and sentenced him to 7 years r.i. 5. the accused appealed to the principal sessions court, namakkal in c.a.no.60 of 2009. the learned appellate judge confirmed the conviction and sentence dismissed the criminal appeal. 6. challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this revision. 7. according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the case is a put-up case. it is a false case. the falsity of the case put up by the prosecution is exposed by the evidence of p.w.1 as well as so called eye witnesses p.ws.2 and 3. further, there are very many contradictions in the evidence of.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in C.A.No.60 of 2009, dated 28.9.2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram in S.C.No.48 of 2008, dated 5.12.2008.)

The sole accused in the Sessions case in S.C.No.48 of 2008 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram, Namakkal district is the revision petitioner.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 29.4.2008 at about 1.30 a.m. near burial ground in Kattanchampatty village, the accused has robbed Rs.200/- from P.W.1 at knife point and committed an offence under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. P.W.1 lodged the complaint with P.W.5, S.I. of Police. P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined as ocular witnesses. Investigation has been done by P.W.6 Inspector of Police.

3. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 marked Ex.P1 to 5 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2.

4. Appreciating the said evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years R.I.

5. The accused appealed to the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal in C.A.No.60 of 2009. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence dismissed the Criminal appeal.

6. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this revision.

7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the case is a put-up case. It is a false case. The falsity of the case put up by the prosecution is exposed by the evidence of P.W.1 as well as so called eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3. Further, there are very many contradictions in the evidence of prosecution. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court overlooked this aspect.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is Parrot-lie, artificial and concocted. They were manufactured witnesses of the prosecution. They does not deserve credence to this aspect. They are completely overlooked by both Courts. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Thus, conviction and sentence of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court suffers from legality and propriety. Such conviction and sentence must go.

9. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) would contend that it is a case of robbery at knife point. P.W.1 was robbed by the accused showing M.O.1 penknife. The occurrence has been witnessed to by P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very crystal clear that on the occurrence day, accused has robbed Rs.200/ from P.W.1. In the circumstances, both the Courts have rightly recorded the conviction and appropriately punished the accused. The findings recorded by both the Courts below does not suffer from legality or propriety.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the judgment of both Courts and also entire materials on record.

11. The question arose whether conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram which has been upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal suffers from legality, propriety calling for interference of this Court under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

12. In this case, P.W.1 is stated to be victim. On the occurrence day, the accused is stated to have robbed Rs.200/- from him at knife point (M.O.1). P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined as eye witness of the occurrence. Both the Courts have made heavy reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and convicted the accused.

13. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would show that on the occurrence day, he came to the scene of crime in a motorbike and he was restrained by the accused prior to the alleged commission of crime/robbery. According to P.W.1, there were wordy discussion. P.W.1 interviewed the accused. He also verified whether he is rowdy. He also answered the question and he has also stated that he can go to the village and mention his name, everybody tell us he is a notorious criminal. Thereafter, alleged occurrence viz., robbery took place. P.Ws.2 and 3 also stated in their evidence that they also interviewed the accused. To them also, he coolly replied. He also confirmed that he is rowdy. Further, it is pertinent to note that even as per the prosecution version at the time of occurrence, totally three persons were present. In their evidence, the accused who is alone, there is no reason to kill them. Apart from this, P.Ws.1 to 3 quarrel themselves on certain vital aspects of the case in their evidence before the Court. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is parrot-lie. It appears to be storry-telling and it is also fairy-tale and also it look like children story. Their evidence is artificial and dramatic. In each respect, their evidence suffers from inherent probability. It is highly dangerous to act upon such evidence and visited a person with penal consequence. The evidence of P.W.3 does not appeal and stand to our reason. These aspects were completely overlooked by both Courts. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Thus, findings recorded based on such evidence suffers from legality and propriety.

14. In view of the foregoings, ordered as under:

(1) This revision is allowed.

(2) The conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court are set aside.

(3) The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted from the charges under Section 392 r/w 394 I.P.C.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //