Criminal revision challenging acquittal in theft case. High Court held prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to hostile witnesses and lack of evidence. Revision dismissed.
Criminal revision case dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Revision No.56 of 2014
Harinarayan
.. Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: - Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment in C.C.No.5 of 2009 dated 16.03.2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram, Salem District.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran, Gov. Adv. (Crl. Side) for R1 : Mr.E.Pragasam, for R2
2
O R D E R
Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem in C.C.No.5 of 2009 dated 16.03.2011, the present revision has been filed.
Both the respondents 2 and 3 were working as a cooli in one Santhosh Maise and Industries Ltd and on 11.12.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., both the respondents 2 and 3 had stolen two valves worth about Rs.25,000/- from the from the company of P.W.1 and P.W.1 has lodged a complaint before the respondent police and based on his complaint, P.W.7,Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.423 of 2007 for an offence under Section 379 IPC and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.9. Then he proceeded to the
3
scene of occurrence, where he prepared an Observation Mahazar,Ex.P.3 and drew an rough sketch, Ex.P.8 and on suspicion,
she arrested both the accused and on such arrest, they have voluntarily given a confession and based on the disclosure statement, he recovered the stolen property from the shop of P.W.4 in the presence of the witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.9. Then, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 381 IPC.
4
property. P.Ws.6, 7 and 10 were also employees of the industries, where the valves were stolen and P.W.8 and P.W.9 are witnesses to the arrest and confession statement given by the accused and also recovery of the stolen articles. P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police registered the complaint and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
5
respondent and perused the materials available on record carefully.
6
view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the trial court considering all the materials and finding no evidence, acquitted the accused. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below and there is no merit in the revision and the same is deserves to be dismissed.
03.04.2017
mrp
Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no
Speaking order/ non-speaking order
To
7
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,
mrp
Crl.R.C.No.56 of 2014
03.04.2017
Harinarayana
State
Babu
Suresh
V.BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court