Partly allowed¶39

A.Sulaiman v. State Rep.by

Madras HC1 Jul 2025CRL RC/1606/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Theft of bicycle - Section 379 IPC - confession statement and recovery - corroboration by PW1-PW4 and Ex.P1-Ex.P9 - alleged stock witness PW3 / seizure mahazar - conviction confirmed, sentence reduced from two years' RI to one year - criminal revision under S.397 r/w 401 CrPC (S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) - Madras High Court - Salem - Crime No.1097 of 2023 - C.C.No.1098 of 2023 - C.A.No.11 of 2024 - Crl.R.C.No.1606 of 2024 - partly allowed - remand to undergo remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 379 of IPC confirmed; sentence imposed in C.C.No.1098 of 2023 reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment 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. ¶39

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction resting on the confession statement and the resulting recovery alone is sustainable, given the contention that there was no other corroborating evidence. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

Recovery was made on the basis of the confession statement recorded from the petitioner, and as such the prosecution categorically proved the charge against the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

PW3 was examined as the seizure witness alongside PW1 (complainant) and PW2/PW4 (police officials), and on that evidence the Court found the charge categorically proved, not accepting the plea that PW3 was a stock witness planted to foist the case.

¶33

Key takeaways

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the conviction ordered by the trial Court and appellate Court.ratio¶34
While confirming the conviction imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the sentence imposed on him in C.C.No.1098 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 (Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem) alone was reduced to the period of one year.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), 01.07.2025, Crl.R.C.No.1606 of 2024 - Criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS) against the judgment dated 29.04.2024 in C.A.No.11 of 2024 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, which confirmed the conviction and two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on 01.12.2023 in C.C.No.1098 of 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem for theft of a yellow colour B-Twin gear bicycle under Section 379 IPC (Crime No.1097 of 2023). Held: recovery was effected on the basis of the confession statement recorded from the petitioner; with PW1-PW4 examined and Ex.P1-Ex.P9 marked, the prosecution categorically proved the charge; PW3 was examined as the seizure witness; the contentions that the conviction rested on confession and recovery alone and that PW3 was a stock witness did not displace the conviction, which stands confirmed. Considering the nature of the offence - the Court noting the petitioner had been convicted in about five similar cycle-stealing cases - the sentence alone was reduced to one year. Revision partly allowed; the trial court shall secure the petitioner and remand him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.

¶1

Crl.R.C.1606 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.1606 of 2024

¶7

A.Sulaiman ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem City. (Crime No.1097 of 2023) ... Respondent

¶10

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.11 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.1098 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and set aside the same.

¶11

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

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.R.C.1606 of 2024

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment passed in C.A.No.11 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 No.IV, Salem, in C.C.No.1098 of 2023 on 01.12.2023 f or the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had stolen a yellow colour B-Twin gear bicycle belonging to the de facto complainant. Pursuant to the complaint given by the de facto complainant on 11.08.2023, the respondent Police registered a First Information Report in Crime No.1097 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.1098 of 2023.

¶18

On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. The prosecution also produced a material object C.P.No.311/ 2023. On the side of the defence, Page 2 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.R.C.1606 of 2024

¶21

no one was examined and no documents were marked. On 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.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶23

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.

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.C.1606 of 2024

¶27

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.P9. 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.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶29

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

¶30

A perusal of records shows that the petitioner had been 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 the first FIR on 26.06.2023, when Page 4 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.R.C.1606 of 2024

¶33

he was trying to sell the bicycles that were stolen by him. Subsequently, the petitioner 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.

¶34

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.1098 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 on the file of the Page 5 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.R.C.1606 of 2024

¶37

Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem, alone is reduced to the period of

¶38

one year.

¶39