This Criminal Revision Case filed by Saravanan challenging his conviction for assault and robbery was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner's death does not abate the revision and found the lower courts' judgments fully supported by prosecution evidence.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; conviction and sentence are sustained.
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
Petitioner/Accused viz., Saravanan, was released on bail vide order of this Court, dated 15.09.2014, made in MP.1 of 2014 in Crl.Rc.No. 864/2014.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Crl.RC.No.864 of 2014
Saravanan Petitioner /A1
Vs
The State by Inspector of Police
Krishnagiri Town Police Station Respondent
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed, against the
judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 30.07.2014, passed
in CA.No.14 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri, confirming the order of conviction and sentence,
dated 29.01.2013, passed in SC.No.134 of 2008, by the Assistant
Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas
For Respondent : Ms.Kritika Kamal, GA
JUDGEMENT
both the Petitioner/A1 and A2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant, Kalyani and that the complainant made several demands to return the money and that on 27.08.2003 at about 18.00 hours, they went to the house of the complainant for demanding further loan from her and that when she refused to give the loan, the accused caused simple injuries to her, by assaulting her with a wooden log on her neck and mouth and robbed 12 ¾ sovereigns of gold jewels from her and thereby the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 450 of IPC.
on the Petitioner/A1, by valid and cogent evidence, for which, a detailed scrutiny of evidence both oral and documentary is necessary and it is done as under.
let in by the Petitioner/A1 to discard the conviction and sentence imposed on him, apart from the fact that the grounds raised in this Criminal Revision Case are not sufficient to set aside the impugned judgements. On the other hand, the evidence let in by the Prosecution as discussed above is sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner/A1 by both the courts below and there are no perversity or infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgements of both the courts below.
20.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Srcm
To:
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Krishnagiri
3.The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Town Police Station.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Vellore.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.RC.No.864 of 2014
SSV(CO)
GN(26/02/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the death of the petitioner abates the criminal revision case challenging conviction.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the conviction for robbery and assault.
Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence suffer from any illegality, perversity, or infirmity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saravanan
The State by Inspector of Police
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
