Partly allowed¶43

A.Sulaiman v. State Rep.by

Madras HC1 Jul 2025CRL RC/1598/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Theft of two electric cycles - conviction under Section 379 IPC sustained in revision - confession statement followed by recovery held sufficient with prosecution witnesses PW1-PW4 and Ex.P1-Ex.P12 - defence plea of stock seizure witness PW3 rejected - sentence reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year while confirming conviction - Crl.R.C.No.1598 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras, G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., decided 01.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case partly allowed: conviction under Section 379 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to one year; trial Court directed to secure the petitioner/accused and remand him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any. ¶43

A.Sulaiman Vs State Rep.by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 IPC could be sustained when, as urged by the defence, it rests on the confession statement and recovery alone, without independent corroboration, and the seizure witness (PW3) is alleged to be a stock witness. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The prosecution categorically proved the charge against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC; on the confession statement recorded from the petitioner, recovery was made, and the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner. The conviction is accordingly confirmed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

While confirming the conviction under Section 379 IPC, considering the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed in C.C.No.1033 of 2023 is reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of one year.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Madras High Court, single Judge) against concurrent judgments of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem (C.A.No.9 of 2024) and the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem (C.C.No.1033 of 2023) convicting the petitioner under Section 379 IPC for stealing two electric cycles of the de facto complainant (Crime No.682 of 2023). Held: on the confession statement recorded from the petitioner, recovery was made, and with PW1-PW4 examined and Ex.P1-Ex.P12 marked the charge stood categorically proved; the conviction by the Courts below was right and was confirmed. Considering the nature of the offence, however, the Court modified the sentence alone, reducing it from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year. Revision partly allowed; trial Court directed to secure the petitioner and remand him to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.

¶1

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1598 of 2024

A.Sulaiman

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem City. (Crime No.682 of 2023)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS) to call for records pertaining to the judgment dated 29.04.2024 made in C.A.No.9 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem for convicting the petitioner by confirming the judgment dated 01.12.2023 made in C.C.No.1033 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and set aside the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramanathan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the

¶19

judgment passed in C.A.No.9 of 2024 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, thereby, confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

¶20

No.IV, Salem, in C.C.No.1033 of 2023 on 01.12.2023 f or the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had stolen

¶22

two electric cycles belonging to the de facto complainant. Pursuant to the complaint given by the de facto complainant on 25.06.2023, the respondent Police registered a First Information Report in Crime No.682 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the respondent filed the final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.1033 of 2023.

¶23

On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. The prosecution also produced two material object C.P.Nos.270 & 271 of 2023. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On Page 2 of 7

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶26

perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Against the same, the present criminal revision has been filed.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the petitioner. He further submitted that except the confession statement of the petitioner, there are no other evidence to corroborate the confession statement of the petitioner to convict him. Based on the confession statement and recovery alone, both the Courts below convicted the petitioner. He also submitted that PW3 is none other than the stock witness of the prosecution had prepared seizure mahazar in order to foist the present case against the petitioner and both the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the same and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC.

¶28

Page 3 of 7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶31

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that pursuant to the confession statement recorded from the accused/petitioner, recovery was made. The prosecution had categorically proved the charge by examining PW1 to PW4 and by marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. All the evidences corroborates each other and clearly proved the charges. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly convicted the petitioner and hence the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶32

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶33

the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the material placed before this Court.

¶34

A perusal of records shows that the petitioner had been

¶35

convicted in about five cases, all of which are similar in nature. The petitioner had stolen five cycles from different places, all of which fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent. Initially, the petitioner was arrested pursuant to the registration of this case on 25.06.2023, when he was trying to sell the bicycles stolen by him. Subsequently, the petitioner Page 4 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶38

was released on bail on 20.07.2023. Thereafter, when he was attempting to sell three more cycles on 13.08.2023, he was once again arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the respondent filed the final report. The complainant was examined as PW1, while other police officials were examined as PW2 and PW4. The seizure witness was examined as PW3. Based on the confession statement recorded from the petitioner, recovery was made. As such, the prosecution categorically proved the charge against the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC. Hence, the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC.

¶39

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction ordered by the trial Court and appellate Court. However, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the petitioner alone. Therefore, while confirming the conviction imposed as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the sentence imposed on him in C.C.No.1033 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem, alone is reduced to the period of one year.

¶40

Page 5 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.R.C.1598 of 2024

¶43