Madras High CourtH.Sulthan ... Revision vs State: Inspector Of Police on 25 August, 2008Author:P.MurgesenBench:P.MurgesenBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25/08/2008

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN

Criminal Revision Case No.1131 of 2003

H.Sulthan	   	   ... Revision Petitioner/1st Accused
				 	
Vs

State: Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.   ... Respondent
			
Prayer

Criminal Revision filed underSection 397and401of Criminal Procedure
Code against the judgment passed in C.A.No.10 of 2003, dated 25.07.2003, by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the
judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.159
of 2001, dated 11.04.2003.
			
!For Petitioner   ... Mr.R.Ramasamy
^For respondent   ... Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesen,
			Govt. Advocate
			  (Crl. Side)

*****
:ORDERThe Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.10
of 2003, dated 25.07.2003, by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram, confirming the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.2, Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.159 of 2001, dated 11.04.2003.2. The case of prosecution briefly is as follows:i) P.W.1, Murugan, is a Watchman in Public Works Department. P.W.2,
Boominathan and P.W.3, Murugesan, are daily wages labourers in Public Works
Department.  P.W.4, Kanaga is the Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department.P.W.5, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Kenikarai Police Station.(ii) On 20.08.2001 at about 4.00 p.m., in Ramanathapuram, Sethupathy
Nagar, Master Plan Complex, the first accused had scrambled over the palisade
and entered into the godown of Public Works Department and stolen an iron pipe
worth Rs.1,000/- and both the first and second accused had placed the same on a
tricycle.  On seeing the same P.W.1 caught hold of them and informed the same to
P.W.4, Kanaga, Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department.(iii) After getting information about the theft, P.W.4 came to the scene
of occurrence.  She went to the Police Station along with P.W.1, accused,
Accused's tricycle and stolen Pipes and lodged a complaint to P.W.5, the Sub-
Inspector of Police at 6.00 p.m. on that day.(iv) On receiving the complaint, P.W.5  registered a case in Cr.No.365 of
2001 underSections 454and380I.P.C and prepared Ex.P.3, the printed First
Information Report and despatched the same to Court and higher officials.(v) After registering the case, P.W.5 visited the scene of occurrence and
prepared Ex.P.1, the Observation Mahazer and Ex.P.4, the Rough Sketch in the
presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and he recorded the statements of witnesses P.W.1 to4.(vi) After  completion of his investigation, P.W.5 filed a charge sheet
against the accused under Sections 454 and 380 I.P.C.3. In order to bring home the offence alleged against the accused,  before
trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 4 were marked and M.Os. 1
and 2 were also produced.  On completion of the examination of witnesses on the
side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned underSection 313Cr.P.C.,
as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and they denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of
the defence.4. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate
No.2, Ramanathapuram, found the accused guilty underSections 454and380I.P.C
and convicted and sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment  and to
pay a fine of Rs.150/- and in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment
for each of the offences.5. Aggrieved over the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Ramanathapuram, an appeal was preferred by the 1st accused before the Principal
Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. The learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram.6. Challenging the above said judgment, the appellant/1st accused has
filed this Criminal Revision.7. The point for consideration is:"Whether the Revision is maintainable?"8. The point:  The only point raised by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner is that there is no independent witness was examined on the
side of the prosecution.  Admittedly, on the date of occurrence, when the
accused were alleged to have stolen an iron pipe M.O.1 and placed the same on a
tricycle M.O.2, they were caught hold by P.W.1, who is the watchman of the
godown.  Then, P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.4, the Assistant Engineer of
P.W.D. and a complaint was lodged by P.W.4 with P.W.5.   Naturally, watchman
will be incharge of the godown.  In this case, watchman has caught hold of the
accused.  The occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m.  It is not suggested to P.W.1
that there were number of independent witnesses available in the scene of
occurrence.  So, the watchman was the available member in charge of the godown.
The evidence of P.W.1, watchman is supported by the evidence of P.W.4, who
reached the scene of occurrence after getting information from P.W.1.  There is
no reason for P.W.1 and P.W.4 to depose against the accused. On careful
consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, this Court is inclined to
accept the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4.  The prosecution has satisfactorily
proved the case underSections 454and380of I.P.C.  Hence, I find no reason to
interfere with the well reasoned and discussed judgment of the trial Court as
well as the first appellate Court.9. Considering the fact that the appellant/accused is aged 68, to meet the
ends of justice, the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on the accused by
the trial court underSection 454I.P.C. is reduced into 90 days. Fine imposed
by the trial court underSection 454I.P.C. stands confirmed.   The conviction
and sentence imposed underSection 380I.P.C. is confirmed.10. The appeal is disposed of by reducing the sentence of imprisonment
underSection 454of I.P.C. alone as stated above. The conviction shall run
concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused/appellant
is set off.11. As the accused/appellant herein is on bail, the respondent is directed
to take steps to procure him for undergoing remaining period of sentence.sj

To1. The Principal Session Judge,
   Ramanathapuram.2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
   Ramanathapuram.3. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
   Kenikarai Police Station,
   Ramanathapuram.4. The Public prosecutor,
   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
   Madurai.