Madras High Court
J. Martin Amalraj vs State Rep. By on 18 January, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.[MD]Nos. 94 of 2012
and 440 & 663 of 2011
J. Martin Amalraj : Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.94 of
2012/Accused No.3
Seenu alias Srinivasan : Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.440 of
2011 /Accused No.6
Senthil Kumar : Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.663 of
2011/Accused No.5
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Aravakurichi Police Station,
Karur District. : Respondent in all Revision
Cases.
PRAYER in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 94 of 2012 : This Criminal
Revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in Judgment in Crl.A.
No. 39 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur
dated 02.03.2011 confirming the order of conviction passed by
the Sessions Court, Karur in S.C.No. 35 of 2009 dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
01.06.2010 under Section 395 of the I.P.C., and set aside the
same and consequently acquit the Revision Petitioner.
PRAYER in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 440 of 2011 : This Criminal
Revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the original records in C.A.No.23
of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur
dated 02.03.2011, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Additional Subordinate Cum Assistant Sessions
Court, Karur, in S.C. No.35 of 2009 dated 01.06.2009, set aside
the same as illegal, acquit the petitioner/accused.
PRAYER in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 663 of 2011 : This Criminal
Revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in Judgment in C.A. No.
23 of 2010 dated 02.03.2011 in confirming the sentence passed
by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No. 35 of
2009 dated 01.06.2010.
For Petitioner in CRL.RC(MD)
No.94 of 2012 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Petitioner in CRL. RC(MD)
No.663 of 2011 : No Appearance
For Petitioner in CRL.RC(MD)
No.440 of 2011 : Mr.A.K. Rengasamy
For Respondent in all the
Revision Cases : Mr. M. Chandrasekaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
***
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON ORDER
This Criminal Revision case is filed to call for the records in Judgment in Crl.A. No. 39 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur dated 02.03.2011 confirming the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court, Karur in S.C.No. 35 of 2009 dated 01.06.2010 under Section 395 of the I.P.C., and set aside the same and consequently acquit the Revision Petitioner.
This Criminal Revision case is filed to call for the original records in C.A.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur dated 02.03.2011, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Subordinate Cum Assistant Sessions Court, Karur, in S.C. No.35 of 2009 dated 01.06.2009, set aside the same as illegal, acquit the petitioner/accused.
This Criminal Revision case is filed to call for the records in Judgment in C.A. No. 23 of 2010 dated 02.03.2011 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 in confirming the sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No. 35 of 2009 dated 01.06.2010.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2008, the Petitioner and others had criminally conspired and restrained the defacto complainant's lorry bearing the registration No.TN 67 X 8297 using one omni van bearing Registration No.AL 4784, afterwards they have threatened P.W.1 & P.W.2 , who are the driver and cleaner of the said lorry and involving in the commission of robbery and taken away the 10 tonnes iron rods. Subsequently, a case was registered against the petitioners and others under Section 397 of the I.P.C., by the respondent police.
3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur convicted the revision petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 6 & 5, by Judgment dated, 01.06.2009 in S.C.No.35 of 2009 under Section 395 of the I.P.C., and imposed a sentence to undergo 7 years Rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.200/-failing which the petitioners have to undergo a further period of Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and the said http://www.judis.nic.in 5 sentence was confirmed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Karur in Crl.A. No.39 of 2010, dated 02.03.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners herein filed the present Criminal Revision Cases.
4. In Crl.R.C.(MD) No.663 of 2011 none appeared.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.94 of 2012 would submit that the revision petitioners have not involved any offence and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.440 of 2011 would submit that the revision petitioner's name was not found in the First Information Report. He would further submit that no identification parade has been conducted as against the revision petitioner. P.W.18 stated that confession statement recorded from this petitioner, but no recovery was made. He would also submit that no incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner and no witness has spoken about the involvement of the revision petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.14 has clearly deposed about the involvement of the revision petitioners/accused No.3, 6 & 5 and also identified all the accused. He would further submit that though, P.W.14 has clearly deposed that all the person came in the car and from the evidence of P.W.14 it is clearly revealed that the involvement of Accused Nos.3, 6 & 5 and also identified before the trial Court during the examination. He would also submit that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and hence no interference.
8. Heard. Perused the materials available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners attacked the Judgment of the trial Court on the ground that available evidence and materials are not sufficient to implicate the revision petitioners and the main thrust of the argument of the counsels for the revision petitioners is that P.W.14 is a stock witness and cannot be relied on. P.W.14 categorically stated that all the accused hired the omni van for two days. The evidence of P.W.15 corroborated the evidence of P.W.14. http://www.judis.nic.in 7 On reading of the evidences of P.W.14 & P.W.15, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.14 & P.W.15. The learned trial Judge has rightly believed the evidence of P.W.14 & P.W.15.
10. The evidences of P.W.1 & P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that there was delay in lodging complaint and initial complaint was lodged under Section 379 of the IPC. The arrest, recovery and evidence of witnesses P.W.9 & P.W.10 along with other witnesses examined by the prosecution would show that the revision petitioners along with other accused had committed robbery. Once robbery committed by the revision petitioners with the other accused is proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses, the discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are not sufficient to reject the prosecution version. When the evidence of P.W.14 is accepted by the Court, then minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 and belated lodging of complaint and failure on the part of the complainant to narrate the entire sequences of occurrence alone are not sufficient to reject the prosecution version. The http://www.judis.nic.in 8 trial Court has thoroughly analysed the prosecution version and rightly decided that the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the Judgment and Conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. There is no merit in the Revision Cases. There is no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
11. Accordingly,
1. the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
2. The Judgment and conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in Crl. A. No.39 of 2010, dated 02.03.2011 is confirmed.
3. The trial Court is directed to take effective steps to secure the revision petitioners/accused Nos.3, 6 & 5.
18.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ksa
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Aravakurichi Police Station,
Karur District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ksa
Crl.R.C.[MD]Nos. 94 of 2012
and 440 & 663 of 2011
18.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in