Dismissed¶64

Kanmani @ Balamani v. State Rep by

Madras HC28 Mar 2025CRL RC/779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022; Madras High Court; M.Nirmal Kumar J.; criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.; conviction under Section 394 read with 397 I.P.C.; chain snatching with grievous hurt; Sulur Police Station Crime No.1525 of 2014; Coimbatore; S.C.No.19 of 2015; appeal C.A.No.177 of 2016 / Crl.A.No.177 of 2016 dismissed 11.02.2022; test identification parade Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11; recovery of M.O.3 gold chain; delay in lodging complaint; plea of false implication; revision dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; 7 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- fine.

What did the court decide?

P.W.1, the victim, identified the petitioner as the person who entered her house, attacked her using M.O.1 and M.O.2, dragged her into the pooja room and snatched gold chain (M.O.3), later recovered from the petitioner in the presence of P.W.6. ¶57

Kanmani @ Balamani Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in lodging the complaint (occurrence on 08.07.2014 at about 5.30 p.m.; complaint lodged between 10.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.) undermines the prosecution case. +3 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶57

Key takeaways

The petitioner was identified by P.W.1 during the identification parade conducted by P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, recorded in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11.ratio¶57
The injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous in nature, confirmed by P.W.7, the Doctor, who testified that such injury could be caused using M.O.1, the vegetable-cutting device (Aruvamanai).ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.) dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by Kanmani @ Balamani, whose conviction under Section 394 read with 397 I.P.C. (7 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- fine) in S.C.No.19 of 2015 had been confirmed in appeal by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore on 11.02.2022. The defence urged delay in lodging the complaint (occurrence 08.07.2014 about 5.30 p.m.; complaint between 10-11 p.m.) and false implication allegedly arising from the petitioner's relationship with Kalaisamy, pointing to M.O.3 chain remaining uncut. The Court found that P.W.1 identified the petitioner as the assailant who entered her house, attacked her with M.O.1 and M.O.2, dragged her into the pooja room and snatched her gold chain (M.O.3), later recovered from the petitioner in the presence of P.W.6; the test identification parade before P.W.8 was recorded in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11; and P.W.7 confirmed the grievous injury could be caused by M.O.1 (Aruvamanai). Holding recovery, identification and grievous injuries proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the Court found no reason to interfere and confirmed the trial Court's judgment.

¶1

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶7

Kanmani @ Balamani, F/aged 40, W/o.Late Perumalsamy, Alarijana Colony, Arugampalayam, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... Appellant/Accused Vs. The State Rep By, Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Crime No.1525 of 2014. ... Complainant/Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., pleased to allow the revision petition and consequently set aside the order passed by the Learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.177 of 2016 dated 11.02.2022 which confirmed the judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 passed in S.C.No.19 of 2015 on the file of the II Assistant Session Judge, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinayaga Vinshu For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)

¶10

______________ Page Nos.1 of 10_

¶11

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

¶12

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner/accused was convicted by the trial Court in S.C.No.19 of 2015, by judgment dated 18.11.2016, for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C

¶15

read with 397 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I.

¶16

2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in C.A.No.177 of 2016, before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11.02.2022, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trail Court. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶17

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 08.07.2014, at about 5:30 p.m., P.W.1, was standing near her house when the petitioner/accused approached and asked for water. When P.W.1 went inside to bring water, the petitioner/accused followed her and attempted to snatch her 3-sovereigns gold chain. When resisted, she was pushed inside, dragged into the pooja room and attacked her forehead and the back of her head with a vegetable-cutting instrument

¶18

______________ Page Nos.2 of 10_

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶21

and with pooja lamp. The petitioner/accused snatched the chain and ran out of the

¶22

house.

¶23

4. P.W.1, Susila, the defacto complainant, raised alarm, P.W.2 and P.W.3, her neighbours, rushed to the scene saw the accused running away. P.W.1 was then taken to the hospital, where P.W.7, the Casualty Doctor, treated her. The Information was sent from the hospital to P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who came to the spot, received the complaint and registered the F.I.R. P.W.10 took up investigation, visited the scene of the occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch, examined the witnesses at the scene and on the next day (09.07.2014) at about 02:00 p.m., arrested the accused. On arrest, she gave a confession in the presence of P.W.6 and the gold chain of P.W.1 was recovered. An identification parade was then conducted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.8) and P.W.1 identified the petitioner as the person who assaulted her and snatched her chain.

¶24

5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.10), marked 17

¶25

______________ Page Nos.3 of 10_

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶28

Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17) and 2 material objects (M.O.1 and M.O.2) and gold chain (M.O.3).

¶29

6. The trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted the petitioner, confirmed by the Sessions Court, as stated above.

¶30

7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 08.07.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., but the complaint was lodged only between 10.00 p.m to 11.00 p.m., with a delay. Though, it is projected that P.W.1, after her assault, was immediately taken to the hospital by P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.7 examined her but no reason given for the delay in lodging the complaint.

¶31

7.1. In this case, P.W.1's sister Chitra was married to one Kalaisamy

¶32

and but they had difference of opinion, Chitra had left the matrimonial home and she is living in Dharmapuri, to assist Kalaisamy and his daughter Sathya, P.W.1 was staying in the house of Kalaisamy, who is employed in the D.S.P office. Kalaisamy having relationship with the petitioner that is the reason for his wife

¶33

______________ Page Nos.4 of 10_

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶36

separation. P.W.1 coming to know about it and staying in the house of Thiru.Kalaisamy, she had ensured that the relationship between the petitioner and Kalaisamy does not continue, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner had come and questioned P.W.1 which has been projected as though the petitioner had committed chain-snatching and attacked the P.W.1 with a deadly weapon.

¶37

7.2. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are neighbours, known person to P.W.1. It is to

¶38

be seen M.O.3 chain is intact. Had it been a chain snatch and P.W.1 resisted the same, the chain would have been cut into pieces, but it is not so, which is admitted by P.W.1, which would go to show that P.W.1 falsely implicated in this case. P.W.7, the doctor who examined the P.W.1, had issued the wound certificate Ex.P.7, in which P.W.7 a false statement recorded with regard to identification of the petitioner. However, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 all admit that the petitioner are known to them. It is only an extramarital affair between the petitioner with Kalaisamy which landed her in the above case.

¶39

7.3. The petitioner has no bad antecedents and after the dismissal of

¶40

the appeal, she is in prison for three years and one month, with 171 days as an

¶41

______________ Page Nos.5 of 10_

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶44

under trial. In total, she has been in prison for three years and eight months.

¶45

8. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the petitioner’s contention, stating that the both Courts below confirmed the conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner’s identity established through the identification parade, marked as Ex.P.8. P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, confirmed that the petitioner identified P.W.1. During the identification parade, the petitioner did not raise any objection and stated P.W.1 was known to her. The identification parade confirms identity of the petitioner.

¶46

8.1. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted

¶47

that, based on the complaint from P.W.1 and the information received from the Government Hospital, P.W.9 visited the hospital, recorded the statement marked as Ex.P.1 and subsequently registered F.I.R (Ex.P.12). P.W.10 took over investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, examined the neighbours P.W.2 and P.W.3 and prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5. P.W.4, a local resident, confirm he chased the accused/petitioner immediately after the incident but could not catch her.

¶48

______________ Page Nos.6 of 10_

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶51

8.2. The Investigating Officer visited the hospital, recorded P.W.1’s statement and collected medical records, Ex.P.7 from P.W.7. The accused arrested on 09.07.2014 at around 2:00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.6. The accused gave confession (Ex.P.14) in the presence of P.W.6 and M.O.3 (chain) was recovered. In this case, the weapons M.O.1 and M.O.2 collected from the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.5. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 identification parade report. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet filed in this case. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.10 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 marked.

¶52

8.3. In this case, P.W.1 confirmed that the petitioner is the person who

¶53

attacked her and snatched her chain and the occurrence took place inside her house. P.W.2 to P.W.4 saw the accused running away from the house of P.W.1. The casualty doctor P.W.7 confirms the injuries sustained by the victim (P.W.1) and on the arrest of the accused, gold chain (M.O.3) recovered. Thus, all events proved by the prosecution and the trial Court convicted the petitioner, imposing the minimum sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.). The petitioner, having committed a grievous offence, cannot be shown any leniency.

¶54

______________ Page Nos.7 of 10_

¶55

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

¶56

Crl.RC.No.779 of 2022

¶57

9. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material records of the case, this Court finds that before the trial Court, P.W.1, the victim, identified the petitioner is the person who entered her house, attacked her using M.O.1 and M.O.2 and dragged her into the pooja room, snatched gold chain (M.O.3), later recovered from the petitioner in the presence of P.W.6. The petitioner was identified by P.W.1 during the identification parade. P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, conducted the test identification parade and the same recorded in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. The injury sustained by P.W.1 found grievous in nature, confirmed by P.W.7, the Doctor who also testified that such injury could be caused using M.O.1 vegetable cutting device (Aruvamanai).

¶58

10. Thus, in this case, recovery, identification and grievous injuries sustained all proved by the above evidence. Both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner, finding that the prosecution has established the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶59