Aravindh v. State Rep.By
in Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2024 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the execution of the sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur (lower appellate Court) in C.A.No.173 of 2023, dated 04.12.2023 confirming the judgment, dated 14.06.2023 in C.C.No.122 of 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi (trial Court) and also release the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case. 2.The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Against which, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Page No.1 of 7
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in this case PW1 lodged a complaint on 17.03.2021 as though on 16.03.2021 at about 8.30 p.m., when she was returning from her work in her TVS XL Super, at that time, two persons came in black and orange colour KTM bike and snatched three sovereigns of gold chain from her. But the complaint was lodged only on the next day and she admits that on 19.03.2021, the Inspector of Police informed her to come to the Police Station where the accused persons were identified and her gold chain was also shown to her. In this case, admittedly there was no test identification parade conducted. PW7/Investigating Officer admits that PW1 come to the Police Station, identified the accused in the Police Station and her gold chain.
Further, the photographs of the accused along with the articles were taken, published in the newspapers and in the local media. He would submit that in the photographs there were display of several mobile phones but no case was registered against the accused persons for theft of any mobile. PW6 is the witness for arrest, confession and recovery, who admits that after the arrest, the accused persons were taken to Thirunagar to the house of Balamurugan Page No.
from where three chains were seized and thereafter, from the house of Nishanth in Vadavelli, Coimbatore three chains stated to have been recovered. But the said Balamurugan and Nishanth not examined as witnesses. Further, the Investigating Officer admits that there is CCTV cameras available in the scene of occurrence but no CCTV recordings produced. In view of the same, the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that in this case the identity, arrest and recovery not proved. Following this case, the petitioners were shown arrest and recovery made in several cases of similar nature. The Trial Court had given a moral conviction not on the legal evidence. Hence, he prayed for granting suspension of sentence.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter and submitted that the case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2021 at about 20.30 hours, when the defacto complainant was returning from her work in her TVS XL near Nathampalayam bus stop, the petitioners came there in black with orange KTM bike, followed her and the pillion rider snatched her three sovereigns gold chain and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Page No.3 of 7
Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.114 of 2021 was registered for the offence under Section 392 IPC. During the course of investigation, on 18.03.2021 at about 15.00 hours, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused, recorded their confession statement and came to know that the petitioners along with other accused involved in many cases of similar nature. Based on their confession statement, properties were seized in all the cases and produced before the Trial Court and the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, PW1 to PW7 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners as stated above which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in the complaint, there is no specific details of the persons who committed the offence and also with regard to the gold chain. In this Page No.4 of 7
case, PW7/Investigating Officer admits that in the scene of occurrence, CCTV camera available but no CCTV recordings produced. PW1/victim admits that the accused were identified to her in the Police Station. PW7 admits that the photographs of the accused taken along with the articles were published in the local media and newspapers. Further, the properties were seized from the house of Balamurugan and Nishanth, but they were neither examined as witnesses nor arrayed as accused in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, the Substantive Sentence of Imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is suspended till the disposal of the revision and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that they shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7.Further, the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of once in three months at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the criminal revision and if they were not able to appear before the Trial Page No.
Court on that day, they shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of their absence as directed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 28.03.2024 cse Page No.6 of 7
M. NIRMAL KUMAR.
, J.
cse in Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2024 28.03.2024 Page No.7 of 7