In a criminal revision for non-bailable offences, this Court held that the conviction was unsustainable because no prosecution witness identified the accused during the trial, rendering the case against him unproved. The conviction and sentence were set aside.
Conviction and sentence set aside; fine amount to be refunded to petitioner if paid.
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.
Bail Slip
That the Appellant/Accused viz Bhagavathi, S/o.Chinnathambi was directed to be released on bail as per order dated 20/04/2011 made in M.P 1/11 in Crl.Rc.No.612/11 on the file of this court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.No. 612 of 2011
Bagavathi .. Petitioner
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
T-15, S.R.M.C. Police Station,
Porur, Chennai.
(Crime No. 1528of 2007)
.. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401
Cr.P.C. Praying to set aside the conviction and sentence
confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge
in C.A.No. 9 of 2011 order dated 18.04.2011 confirming the
judgment and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Poonamallee inC.C.No.247 of 2009 order dated 07.02.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kalaiselvan for Mr. A.P. Sathyamurthy For Respondent : Mrs.T.P.Savitha, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
O R D E R
Aggrieved over the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in C.A.No. 9 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011, the petitioner who is the accused in the said case has filed this Revision to call for the records pertaining to the said Criminal Appeal and to set aside the punishment awarded to this petitioner.
The case of the prosecution is as follows;
U/s. 338 IPC
Imposed a fine amount of Rs.1000/- in default to under to one month simple imprisonment
Sentenced him to under to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, one month simple imprisonment
U/s. 279 IPC No separate imprisonment for this Section
at the time of trial. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, without seeing these aspects, found the petitioner guilty of the offences. Hence, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner are substantiated.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee in C.C. No.247 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011, as confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.Appl. No. 9 of 2011 dated 07.02.2011, are set aside. If any fine amount is paid by the Revision Petitioner, it should be refunded to the revision petitioner.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ak
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Poonamallee.
3.-do- The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvallur.
4.The Supeintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal.
5. The Inspector of Police,
T-15, S.R.M.C. Police Station,
Porur, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
7.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvallur.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, Current Section, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No. 612 of 2011
na(co) nr 04/06/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence are sustainable when none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused at the time of trial.
Whether the lower courts erred in finding the accused guilty despite lack of identification evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bagavathi
State
R. Pongiappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
