Madras High Court
Reeta vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2024
Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.127 & 129 of 2020
Reeta ... Appellant/Appellant/ Accused No.1
(Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020)
Prakash ... Appellant/Appellant/ Accused No.2
(Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.129 of 2020)
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station,
Dindigul.
(Crime No.593 of 2015) ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
(In both Appeals)
PRAYER in Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020: Criminal Appeal filed under
Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records
pertaining to Crl.A.No.118 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, and set aside the judgment dated
07.11.2019 passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, made
in Crl.A.No.118 of 2017 confirming the order of conviction dated
04.10.2017 made in C.C.No.33 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Dindigul, and allow the Criminal Appeal.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
PRAYER in Crl.A.(MD).No.129 of 2020: Criminal Appeal filed under
Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records
pertaining to Crl.A.No.119 of 2017 on the file of the learned Fast Track
Mahila Judge, Dindigul, and set aside the judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed
by the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul made in Crl.A.No.119 of
2017 modifying the charges and confirming the sentence dated 04.10.2017
made in C.C.No.184 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul, and allow this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Manikandan
(In both Appeals)
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
(In both Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed to set aside the judgments passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, in Crl.A.Nos.118 & 119 of 2017 dated 07.11.2019, confirming and modifying the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, in C.C.Nos.33 and 184 of 2016, dated 04.10.2017.
2. Since the appellants in both the appeals were arrayed as A1 and A2 in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed by way of this common judgment. Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
3.The brief facts of the case as follows:
The accused in this case are the husband and wife. On 25.09.2015, at about 12.00 noon, A1 is said to have entered into the house of P.W.1 and requested water for drinking. After drinking water, A1 sought permission from P.W.1 to adjust her messy dress. Since A1 was residing near the house of P.W.1 two years back, she was well known to P.W.1, P.W.1 allowed her to adjust her dress in the bed room. A1 did not come out side even after ten minutes, P.W.1 went to the bed room and found that A1 looted 31 sovereigns of gold jewels worth about Rs.3,10,000/-, which were kept inside the bureau. On seeing P.W.1, she pushed P.W.1 away and rushed outside and fled away from the scene of occurrence along with A2, who had already been waiting outside of the house of P.W.1. P.W.1 tried to catch them but could not. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 26.09.2015. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.593 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 380 r/w 109 of IPC and conducted investigation. During investigation, they found that the accused committed thefts in similar manner in various houses and recovered the gold jewels within 2 days of the occurrence. After completion Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 of investigation, they filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Dindigul and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.33 of 2016. During the pendency of the trial, the case was split up on 16.11.2016, as against A2 and renumbered as C.C.No.184 of 2016.
4. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
5. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 15 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.15. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examinationof the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the appellants, no one was examined and no document was marked.
Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, after full-fledged trial, convicted the appellant/A1 in Crl.A.(MD)No.127 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120(b) and 380 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence. Similarly, he convicted the appellant/A2 in Crl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 380 and 109 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred the Criminal Appeals before the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, in Crl.A.Nos.118 & 119 of 2017. By the order dated 07.11.2019, the first appellate Court has dismissed Crl.A.No.118 of 2017 by confirming the conviction and judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. The first appellate Court has modified the charges framed against accused/A2 in Crl.A.No.119 of 2017 from Sections 120(b), 380 and 109 of IPC to Sections 120(b) and 380 r/w 109 IPC and convicted A2 accordingly. Further, sentenced him to Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 120(b) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 r/w 109 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
8. Aggrieved over the above said conviction and sentence, imposed by the Courts below, the appellants preferred the present Criminal Appeals.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is material contradiction between P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the registration of case. He further submitted that the recovery was not proved in accordance with law. According to him, at the time of confession, the accused disclosed that the stolen jewels were pledged in a Pawn Broker Shop and thereafter, the same were recovered. But, the concerned Pawn Broker was not examined and there is no document to prove the recovery from the Pawn Broker Shop. In the said circumstances, he seeks for acquittal. Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions and also from the perusal of the records submitted that the recovery was clearly proved by the prosecution. P.W.1 and P.W.5 also clearly deposed about the immediate escape of the accused from the scene of occurrence. From their evidence, the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence was clearly proved. The recovery was made from the accused and recovery mahazer was also marked. The evidence of the recovery witness is cogent and trustworthy. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of recovery witness. Once, the recovery from the appellants was proved, then there is presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Hence, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.
11. This Court considered the rival submissions, perused the records and the impugned judgment.
12. P.W.1, in her evidence, deposed that on 25.09.2015 at 12.00 p.m when she was inside his house, A1 entered into the house and requested water for drinking. Threafter, she requested P.W.1 to allow her to adjust her Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 dress in the bed room. At that time, A1 took 31 sovereigns of gold jewels from her house and on seeing P.W.1, she rushed out of the house along with A2, who was waiting out side in a bike. Immediately, P.W.1 gave a complaint. P.W.5, in his evidence, deposed that both the accued escaped from the scene of occurrence on hearing the alaram of P.W.1, and he was informed about the theft of gold jewels immediately by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is cogent and trustworthy. Hence, both the Courts below appreciated the said evidence and believed their evidence. This Court also went through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. P.W.1 cpgenly deposed about the theft committed by A1 and escape from the scene of the occurrence along with her husband/A2. P.W.5 clearly deposed that he saw the both accused fleeing away from the house of P.W.1 and he was informed about the theft of jewels by A1. In this aspect, P.W.5's evidence is trustyworthy and his evidence is admissible on the principle of res gestae.
13. P.W.9 arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.8. Both A1 and A2 gave confession and a portion of jewels were recovered at Chennai, Valasavakkam Bus Stop on their disclosure. During the Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 confession, it was revealed that both A1 and A2 were involved in similar offence and they further disclosed about the remaining jewels that both had pledged in the Pawn Broker Shop. The said jewels were also recovered and the same is related to some other crime number. This Court finds that no materials were elicited during the course of the cross examination of P.W.6 and P.W.8 to disbelieve their version. In the said circumstances, recovery was clearly proved. The appellants during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have not furnished any explanation about the possession of the stolen articles of the defacto complainnat.
14. Hence, the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, comes into play. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, reads as follows:
“114.Court may presume existence of certain facts:-
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.” Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 Illustrations The Court may presume:-
(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 3 SCC 885 held as follows:
“10. According to illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.813 of 2023 possession. It would, in our opinion, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the court should draw the presumption that a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft and who has not been able to account for his possession is the thief or whether he is the receiver of the goods knowing them to be stolen. We may state at this stage Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 that the appellant has not been able to account for his possession of the stolen articles and the explanation furnished by him is not all worthy of credence. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the courts below were justified in drawing the presumption that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code, 1860. The fact that the culprits entered the room on the third floor by opening the window and thereafter broke open a large number of boxes and almirahs and removed huge quantity of gold and silverware shows that it was not the work of a single individual. The fact that the appellant was found soon after the theft in possession of a very large number of stolen articles shows that he was himself the thief and not the receiver of stolen goods.
The present is not a case wherein one or two or a very few of the stolen articles were found in the possession of the appellant soon after the theft. On the contrary, the bulk number of stolen articles were recovered from him. The number and the nature of the stolen articles recovered from the appellant soon after the theft coupled with the other circumstances of the case, in our opinion, warrant the presumption that the appellant himself committed the theft after entering the room on Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 the third storey of Kistoor Chand's house through the window.”
16. Both the appellants are the husband and wife. Apart from that, both had conspired together and committed the offence of theft. As per conspiracy, A1 entered into the house of P.W.1 and looted the gold articles and escaped on the bike of A2. Therefore, the conspiracy is clearly proved as against both the accused as held by both the Courts below.
17. Therefore, in all aspects, the prosecution has clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also there is no perversity in the judgment of the Courts below to interfere under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.
18. In view of the above discussion, the Courts below rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them for the offences as stated above. The first appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020 as against A1 and modified the conviction and sentence as against A2. This Court, considering the previous antecedents of the appellants that they had habit of indulging in similar nature of offence finds no grounds to interfere with the punishment of sentence. Hence, the appeals filed by the appelllants herein, deserve to be dismissed
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed by confirming the judgments passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, in Crl.A.Nos.118 & 119 of 2017 dated 07.11.2019, confirming and modifying the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, in C.C.Nos.33 and 184 of 2016, dated 04.10.2017.
28.11.2024.
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
dss
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.127 of 2020
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
To:
1.The Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul.
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.
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.127 & 129 of 2020 28.11.2024 Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis