Dismissed

Elamaran Alias John Elamaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Feb 2020CRL RC/1027/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and robbery. The court held that prosecution evidence was corroborated and concluded the offence was proved. However, sentencing was reduced to the period already undergone due to the petitioner's age, family, and prior incarceration time already served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Elamaran Alias John Elamaran Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 06.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL. R.C. NO. 1027 OF 2010

¶6

Elamaran alias John Elamaran @ Maran .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs -

¶8

State, rep. by The Inspector of Police B-3 Tenynampet Police Station Chennai Cr.NO.158/2007 .. Respondent

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 05.10.2010, passed by the learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track court No.III), Chennai, in C.A.No.19 of 2010 confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence dated 21.12.2009 passed by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C. No.4785 of 2007 and set aside the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. M.G.L.Sankaran For Respondent : Ms. C.Iyyapparaj, APP ORDER

¶11

The petitioner was charged and tried before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C. No.4785 of 2007 and on being found guilty, the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track court No.III), Chennai, in C.A.No.19 of 2010, which was allowed in part by confirming the conviction, but modifying the sentence to 6 moths rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.02.2007 the complainant, P.W.1, and his wife had left for their office in the morning leaving behind the complainant's mother, P.W.2 at home. Around 2.00 p.m., the accused came to the flat of P.W.1 and requested P.W.2 to give a stick for enabling him to give telephone connection routing it through the bed room. P.W.2 provided the accused with a wooden reeper and when P.W.2 engaged herself to call P.W.1, the accused attacked P.W.2 on her head with the wooden reeper and on sustaining the injury, P.W.2 fell down unconscious.

¶14

When P.W.1 returned from work in the evening, he found his mother unconscious and also found that the almirahs were found open and all the jewelery were found missing. Thereafter, the victim/P.W.2 was taken to the hospital. P.W.1, thereafter, lodged a complaint with the police and on the recovery of P.W.2, police officials enquired P.W.2 and she narrated the happenings on 03.02.2007. The complaint was taken on file and a case in Crime No.158 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 394 IPC. Investigation of the case was taken up, which resulted in apprehending the accused which resulted in the recovery of the jewels, which were pledged with P.W.8. Thereafter, the law enforcing agency filed the final report against the accused.

¶15

After providing the necessary documents to the accused as mandated under the Criminal Procedure Code, the case was taken on file. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.W.s 1 to 12 and marked 22 documents and produced 22 material objects, including gold jewels recovered from the Accused. When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of the accused, neither oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was marked. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted the sentenced the accused/petitioner as above.

¶16

Against the said judgment of the trial court, the accused preferred appeal before the lower appellate court, which confirmed the order passed by the trial court, but however, modified the sentence from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said sentence, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the above material discrepancies have not been taken note of by the courts below, while convicting the

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

accused and, therefore, the conviction and the subsequent sentence is liable to be interfered with. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of P.W.s 1, 3 and 6 do not corroborate each other. It is further submitted that the recovery of the jewels have not been proved in accordance with law and that the witnesses, who signed the mahazar have stated that they have signed in blank papers. Therefore, it is wholly unsafe to rely upon the said testimony to find the accused guilty. However, the courts below, without considering the said documentary evidence, has convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment which is disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Without going into the merits of the case, it is submitted that the petitioner is aged only 38 years and he got a family to look after and it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused has already been under incarceration for a period of three months and, therefore, this Court may consider reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner.

¶20

7.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent submitted that the testimony of P.W.s 1, 3 and 6 corroborate each other and that P.W.3 has clearly spoken about the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence on the said day. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that P.W.8 has clearly spoken about the accused pledging the jewels on the date of occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. It is further submitted that P.W.9, the fingerprint expert, who lifted the fingerprints from the scene of occurrence has testified that the fingerprint of the accused was present at the scene of occurrence. In view of the clinching evidence, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have considered the same in proper perspective and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the said order passed by the lower appellate court. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone a period of three months of imprisonment and that fine amount has also been paid.

¶21

This Court heard both sides, on the above contentions and perused the materials available on record as also the judgments passed by the courts below.

¶22

A perusal of the testimony of P.W.s 1, 3 and 6 reveal that they have corroborated each other on all material particulars. Further, P.W.3 has categorically spoken about the entry of the accused on the day of occurrence and the same has also been informed to P.W.1. Further, P.W.8 has deposed that the jewelery was pledged by the accused on 3.2.07, which was subsequently recovered by the police, which jewelery belonged to P.W.1. It is to be pointed out that in spite of cross

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

examination, the defense was not able to elicit any worthwhile admission from the witnesses, which ensures to the benefit of the accused. Further, the accused had no explanation as to how the jewels belonging to P.W.1 were in his possession which was pledged by him with P.W.8. Equally so, the fingerprint expert, P.W.9, had lifted fingerprints from the residence of P.W.1 of which some of the fingerprints matched with the fingerprints of the accused. However, the accused did not offer any explanation as to how his fingerprints were lifted from the residence of P.W.1.

¶25

On an overall consideration of the case, it is clear that the accused had caused the injury on P.W.2 and had stolen the jewels and, therefore, the offence for which he was charged and tried stands conclusively proved on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the findings recorded by the courts below.

¶26

As regards the plea of the accused for a lesser sentence, the trial court, though had imposed a sentence of one year, however, on appeal, the lower appellate court has modified the same to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, of which the accused has undergone a period of three months imprisonment. It is to be remembered that the intention of the accused was to steal the jewels from the house of P.W.1 and in the course of the said occurrence, had beaten P.W.2. However, the act of the accused deserves to be deprecated, but considering the age of the accused, the chance for rehabilitation and also the family of the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed on the accused/petitioner by the lower appellate court may be reduced.

¶27

The petitioner has been under incarceration for a period of three months prior to his release on bail, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not come to the adverse notice of the respondent police during the intervening period, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. Accordingly the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused for the offence u/s 394 IPC is reduced to the period already gone.

¶28

For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction passed by the courts below, but reducing the sentence imposed on the accused/petitioner to the period already undergone. It is reported that the

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

petitioner is on bail. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand terminated.

¶31

s/d-

¶32

Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
jrs
To
1. The Addl. District Court and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track court No.III), Chennai,
2. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate
Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
4. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
CRL. R.C. NO. 1027 OF 2010
PP(CO)
rli(20/05/2020)

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Elamaran Alias John Elamaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elamaran Alias John Elamaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Harinatha Reddy Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Manimozhi Vs Mr.K.T.Thambi Arasu

M/S.Preet Remedies Private Ltd. Vs the Drug Inspsector

E.Muniyappan Vs K.v.Raja, Aged 52 Years

Kmm Freight Systems Vs J.Michael Manoharan

C.Balasubramaniam Vs K.R.Nachimuthu