Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022

5.The gist of the case is that on 26.02.2021 at about 4.15 a.m., the petitioners/A1 to A3 with an intention to commit theft trespassed into Sethukkal Mariamman Kovil, Paramathi, Namakkal District, assaulted the watchman/PW1, illegally detained him and kept him locked in a room. A2 was standing as guard to PW1. A1 and A3 broke opened the lock of the temple shrine and stolen the silver crown/MO1 and ½ sovereign Thali Potu/MO2, thereby committed the offence under Sections 458, 342, 380 and 380 r/w. 34 IPC. PW1 through his mobile informed PW5/trustee of the temple about the incident. PW5 called PW3/another trustee and informed PW4/hereditary poojari about the incident. All three reached the temple found the watchman locked inside the room, opened the door and PW1 narrated the incident. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint with PW7/Sub- Inspector of Police. Since PW1 was not conversant to write, PW4 wrote the complaint. PW7 registered FIR, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses, recorded their statements and handed over the investigation to PW8/Inspector of Police. On the same day at about 3.00 p.m., PW8 found the accused in a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022 suspicious manner with a bike near Karupannar temple. When they were questioned, they gave contradictory statements and thereafter they were arrested, gave confession, A1 produced MO1 and MO2 from the bike and all the accused produced before the Magistrate for remand and the properties were sent to the Court. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the evidence of PW3 is that he opened the lock with the key available with him but it is projected that lock was broke opened using a iron rod. PW6, who is the witness for observation mahazar states that lock was in open condition but the evidence of PW1 is that the accused persons broke opened the lock using the iron rod. From the seizure mahazar, it is seen that lock was in open condition and had no marks of hammering or any mark of levering is found in the lock. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt but the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court not considering these vital contradictions, convicted the petitioners. Further, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022 Trial Court without any evidence and materials referred to Crime No.159 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 392 and 397 IPC pending before Paramathi Police Station, Crime No.258 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC pending before Velur Police Station against all the three accused. Further against A1 the Trial Court referred Crime No.150 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 379 IPC pending before Nilakottai Police Station, Crime No.61 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 394 and 397 IPC pending before Dharapuram Police Station, Crime No.965 of 2020 for the offence under Section 394 IPC pending before Alanganallur Police Station and Crime No.2715 of 2016 for the offence under Section 75 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act pending before Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai. As against A2 and A3, the Trial Court referred Crime No.843 of 2020 for the offence under Section 379 IPC pending before Paramathi Police Station. This recording of previous cases is without any materials and none of the witnesses including the Police Personnel, namely, PW7 and PW8 stated anything about the previous cases and produced any materials. On what basis the Trial Court recorded the same is not known. Further, this fact weighed against the petitioners/accused and they were directed to undergo https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022 sentence consecutively. Admittedly, neither of the accused were convicted in any of these cases nor charges were framed against them under Sections 211 and 236 Cr.P.C. and no questions put against them. Hence, the judgment passed by the Trial Court directing the sentences to run consecutively is not sustainable.

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a counter and submitted that in this case PW1/watchman of Sethukkal Maraiamman Kovil, Paramathi, Namakkal District is the victim/defacto complainant who was assaulted by the accused/A1 to A3 and kept him locked in a room. Thereafter, A1 to A3 committed the offence of robbery of MO1 and MO2. He would submit that PW1 was under shock and only after confirming the accused had left the place, he called PW5/trustee of the temple and informed about the incident, hence there was a delay. Thereafter, PW5 immediately called PW3/another trustee of the temple. Since he was unable to be contacted, he went in person to his house to inform the same, PW2 was also informed about the incident. All the three reached the temple, found PW1 kept under lock in a room, door was opened and thereafter, PW1 narrated the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022 incident to PW2, PW3 and PW5, thereafter entered into the temple and found MO1 and MO2 missing, lodged a complaint with PW7/Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case, conducted investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and handed over the investigation to PW8/Inspector of Police. On the same day i.e., 26.02.2021 at about 3.00 p.m. PW8 found the accused in a suspicious manner near Karupannar tempe with Pulsar bike bearing registration No.TN- 57-BD-4222. Since the bike registration number denoted different District, there was some suspicion, the accused were questioned and they gave contradictory statements. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested in the presence of PW5 and another person. The accused persons gave confession admitting the commission of offence and produced MO1 and MO2 from the bike. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, PW1 identified the accused who committed the offence. PW5 identifies the accused who gave confession statements, Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and thereafter, on their confession MO1 and MO2 recovered and produced before the Court. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above. The Sessions Court confirmed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.646 & 405 of 2023 and 1685 of 2022 conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court by dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these petitions.

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Namakkal District.

2.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Namakkal.

3.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.