The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Revision filed against an order of acquittal in a theft charge. The single eyewitness turned hostile and no evidence proved guilt. The Court held that remanding for fresh trial to produce documents was impermissible as the prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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.57 of 2014
T.Kannappan .. Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: - Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 28.05.2004 made in C.C.No.4407 of 1994 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Saidapet, Chennai, and remand back the same for fresh trial.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran, Gov. Adv. (Crl. Side) for R5
2
O R D E R
The respondents 1 to 4 are accused in C.C.No.4407 of 1994
on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 28.05.2004, acquitted all the accused. Now, challenging the order of acquittal, P.W.2, is before this Court with this revision.
The second respondent/A2 was a tenant under P.W.2 in respect of a shop. P.W.1 is an another tenant under P.W.2 in another shop. On 06.03.1994, at about 10.00 a.m., when P.W.1 came to open his shop, he found that the name board of the shop has been changed as AVS Thomas Recording and the shop has been broke open and the things have been stolen from the shop. Hence, he has given a complaint before the respondent police.
on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.339/1994. Then he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of the Witnesses and recovered the material objects(M.Os.1 to 12) in the presence of the witnesses. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
3
4
5
6
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system is that every person, accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
03.04.2017
mrp
Index: yes/no Internet: yes/no
Speaking order/non speaking order
7
To
8
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,
mrp
Crl.R.C.No.57 of 2014
03.04.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision against an order of acquittal in a theft case warrants interference to remand for fresh trial.
Whether the absence of hostile evidence and lack of documents in evidence provides a valid ground to overturn an acquittal.
Whether the petitioner has discharged the burden of proving that the trial court ignored voluminous documents to acquit the accused.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Kannappan
K.Appavu Pandian
Arunthier Alex Raj @ Alex Raj @M.A.Pandian
Esa Inban
Inspector of Police, J6 Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai
V.Bh/arathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court