Criminal appeal filed against conviction and sentence for robbery and snatching. Court found discrepancies in prosecution witnesses' accounts of arrest versus accused's version. Appeal allowed based on benefit of doubt.
Criminal appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond cancelled and fine refunded.
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
The Appellant/ Sole Accused,namely Chandrasekar @ Sekar S/o.Gunasekar was directed to be released on bail as per order dated 03.01.2011 in Crl MP.NO.1/10 IN CRL A.NO.591/2010 on the file of this Hon'ble court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2010
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.A.No.591 of 2010
Chandrasekar @ Sekar Appellant/Accused
Vs
State by Inspector of Police
Nambiyur Police Station, Erode
Crime No.183/2009
Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 30.08.2010, made in SC.No.179 of 2009, by the Additional District Sessions Court (FTC II), Gopichettipalayam.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar, APP
JUDGEMENT
Village, had deposed that on 17.8.2009, at 6.00 p.m., while she was walking along with PW.2, Subbulakshmi, along the Nambiyur-Sevur Road, near Vilvamarathu Karupparayan Temple, the accused came in a Hero Honda Motorcycle, stopped the motorcycle and waylaid her and after spilling chilly powder over her face, snatched her gold chain and ran away and that when she raised an alarm, shouting “thief, thief”, some persons came there and tried to catch the accused, but the accused ran into the forest and that she had given a complaint to the Respondent Police and the complaint was marked as Ex.P1. The chain, which had been snatched by the Appellant/ accused, was marked as MO.1 and the Motorcycle used by the Appellant/ accused was marked as MO.2
the witnesses, Periasamy and Krishnakumar, and got their signatures and remanded the Appellant/ accused to judicial custody and thereafter, he had given a requisition letter to the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, on 11.9.2009 through PW.7 and received the endorsement of the Regional Transport Officer, Palakodu and confirmed that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 29 AC 0450 is belonging to the accused and examined PW.7 and recorded their statements and after completing investigation, he had filed the final report for the offences under Sections 392 and 328 of IPC.
5.The learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Prosecution has not proved the charges against the Appellant, by cogent evidence and that the case was a fabricated and foisted one and that the Appellant was arrested on mistaken identity and that the appellant being a stranger no steps were taken by the respondent to conduct a test identification parade, as contemplated under law and that the Appellant was identified for the first time in the Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is in categoric terms to the effect that immediately after the occurrence, when they had gone to the Police Station along with PW.4 and PW.5, they had seen the accused at the Police Station and they had identified him and the jewels and only thereafter, the complaint was taken from them and the case was registered. He would further submit that if the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are taken into consideration, the entire case of the Prosecution with regard to the arrest, recovery and confession, has to fail and that the Trial Court, without taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, had erroneously convicted the Appellant. When there is a glaring and grave discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the arrest, recovery and confession, the entire case of the Prosecution is doubtful and thereby, the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, entitling him to be acquitted and in such circumstances, he would pray that this Criminal Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence be set aside.
suffers from any infirmity and pray for dismissal of this Criminal Appeal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Srcm
To:
1.The Additional District Sessions Judge (FTC II),
Gopichettipalayam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate NO.II,Gobi chettipalayam.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate , Erode
4. The Superintendent ,Central Prison, Coimbatore
5.The Inspector of Police,
Nambiyur Police Station, Erode
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
+1cc to Mr. , Advocate SR.No. 49637
Crl.A.No.591 of 2010
A.SK(19/07/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has proved the elements of robbery and snatching against the appellant given the discrepancy in the timeline of arrest.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be granted to the appellant due to conflicting evidence regarding the arrest and recovery.
Whether the acquittal is justified based on the prosecution's failure to establish a reliable chain of evidence regarding arrest.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrasekar @ Sekar
State
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
