Madras High Court
Xavier Alias Thambi vs Inspector Of Police, Railway Police, ... on 14 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ3506
ORDER
1. This revision is directed by the accused against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1993 in which he was confirmed the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C. No. 67 of 1992 in which the accused has been convicted under Ss. 328 and 379, IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment under S. 328 and two years imprisonment under S. 379, the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5-6-1992 P.W. 1 G. V. S. Krishnan, his wife Meera and his sister-in-law Roopa were travelling in Train No. 274 in S. 2 coach from Nagore to Bangalore. In the same coach in which they were travelling the accused and two others also were travelling. With the intention of stealing their valuables the accused became friendly with them and he (accused) gave their fruitnik drinks mixed with some poisonous substance that made them unconscious and while they were unconsciously sleeping, on 6-6-1992 at 5-00 a.m. when the train was running from Salem towards Hosur the accused stripped them off their valuables viz., gold chain and also a suit case containing a necklace and clothes of the value of Rs. 30,000/- and made good his escape. Later, on a complaint by P.W. 1 the police investigated and recovered the stolen materials on a confession made by the accused and he was then charged for offences under Ss. 328 and 379, IPC. The accused denied the charge.
3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge who tried the case held that the charges against the accused have been proved and therefore he convicted and sentenced them as stated above, and in the appeal the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the same.
4. On going through the judgments of both the Courts below I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with it in this revision. P.W. 1 has spoken that the accused and others were also travelling with them in the same coach and the accused voluntarily became friendly with them and in spite of their reluctance the accused made them drink fruitnik juice offered by him and in the early morning at 5-30 a.m. when he woke up he found his suit case missing and he woke up his wife and told her about that, and she then said that her gold chain also was missing, and he also found that the accused was not there then P.W. 1 has also spoken that he gave a complaint Ex.P1 to the Dharmapuri Railway Police on 6-6-1992.
5. P.W. 2 Roopa, sister-in-law of P.W. 1 has given evidence corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1 their evidence is clearly corroborated by Ex.P1 complaint, and as stated by the Court below there is absolutely no contradiction in the evidence given by the witnesses and the averments in Ex.P. 1. PWs. 1 and 2 had absolutely no grudge against the accused to give false evidence against him. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.
6. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is further strengthened by the evidence of P.W. 4 T.T.R. who was on that day in charge of the coach in which the witnesses were travelling. He has deposed that when the train stopped at Hosur P.W. 1 complained to him that some person cheated him and his family by making drink fruitnik juice offered by him and when they were in sound sleep they made good their escape with the valuable of P.W. 1. From this evidence there is no difficulty in holding that it is true that P.W. 1 and his family had been cheated and their valuables had been stolen away.
7. Then it is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance of a confessional statement made by the accused the accused took P.W. 7 Investigating Officer and showed P.W. 5 Arumugha Asari saying that he helped him in disposing the jewels, and P.W. 5 then took them to the pawn shop of one Thangaraj where the said Thangaraj stated that he purchased some gold ornaments from the accused and he has melted them into ingots and he handed over M.O. 2 ingot of 49.700 grams which was recovered under a mahazar Ex.P. 6 in the presence of witnesses. Then the accused took the police to the pawn shop of P.W. 3 Jainraj and P. W. 3 handed over M.O. 1 gold chain as the one which was pawned by the accused. That was also recovered under a mahazar. The Inspector also recovered Ex.P2 receipt from the accused produced by him which is a receipt for pawning M.O. 1. As regards these recoveries I find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case.
8. The evidence discloses that the accused has been apprehended on being shown by P.W. 1 and later he has been identified by P.W. 2 and the wife of P.W. 1. The only point argued before me in the revision is that there is no proper identification of the accused. This point has been dealt with elaborately by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal. The evidence is that on 25-6-1992 at about 8-00 a.m. when P. W. 7 investigating officer and other constables and P.W. 1 were in front of Bangalore Railway Station P.W. 1 saw the accused who came towards them trying to slip away on seeing them and on his telling about it to the Inspector he was chased and caught. As the learned Sessions Judge has rightly stated the accused had been travelling with P.W. 1 and his family members throughout the occurrence night and he has been speaking with them and offered fruitnik juice and therefore there cannot be any difficulty in identifying the accused by P.W. 1 P.W. 2 also has identified the accused in the police station. Thus considering I find absolutely no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. In this view of the matter the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
9. Petition dismissed.