Anand @ Anand Kumar vs State

Ms. R. Mala, J.—This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.5.2005, made in S.C. No. 382 of

2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore, whereby the accused/appellant was

convicted for the offence u/s 392 read with 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default in payment, to undergo four months simple imprisonment. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the accused stating

that on 24.2.2004, at about 17.00 hours, at Gandhi Park bus stand in Coimbatore city, the accused approached witness Sharmila by riding a

motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 38L 3773 in a slow motion and all of a sudden, he snatched away three sovereigns of gold chain worth

about Rs. 14,000/- from her neck and on seeing this, the public who approached to catch the accused, at that time, he threatened them on knife

point and also throwing a soda bottle on the road and thus escaped, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 392 read with 397 IPC.

The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and committed the matter to the Principal

Sessions Court, Coimbatore and the Principal Sessions Court made over it to the Additional District and Sessions Court. The Additional District

and Sessions Court after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, on the side of the prosecution,

P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-10 and M.O. 1 to M.O. 6 were marked.

The case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witness is as follows:

(i) P.W. 1 is the complainant and his wife is P.W. 2 Sharmila, who was wearing a M.O. 1 gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns. On 24.2.2004,

at about 5.00 p.m., while P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were standing in the Gandhi park bus stop, the accused came on the way by riding M.O. 4 Hero

Honda bearing Registration No. TN 38L 3773 and crossed over P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, but immediately, the accused took U turned towards them

and instantly in a moment snatched M.O. 1 from P.W. 2''s neck and sped away, inspite of rising of hue and cry by P.W. 2, and also rising of

alarms ""thirudan "" by P.W. 2, which was heard and taken note of instantaneously by P.W. 3 to P.W. 6 who were threatened by the accused by

means of hurling of soda bottles which were broken and also by furling of M.O. 2 knife and the accused was sped away from the place.

(ii) Immediately, P.W. 1 along with P.W. 2 went to the police station at 5.45 p.m., on 24.2.2004 and gave a complaint Exhibit P-1 before P.W.

11/Balakrishnan, Inspector of Police, who was incharge and registered the case in Crime No. 258 of 2004 u/s 397 IPC and prepared a printed

F.I.R. under Exhibit P8 and took up the matter for investigation.

(iii) On the same day, at about 6.45 p.m., P.W. 11 went to the place of occurrence along with P.W. 1 and prepared observation mahazar Exhibit

P3 in the presence of P.W. 6 Gangadharan and one Raj an and drew rough sketch Exhibit P9 and collected M.O. 3 broken soda bottle and M.O.

5 soda bottle neck pellet in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses under Exhibit P2-seizure mahazar for M.O. 3 and M.O. 5. Then he examined

P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 and recorded their statements.

(iv) On 25.2.2004, at 12.00 noon, while P.W. 11 was engaged himself in traffic checking, he arrested the accused along with M.O. 4 motor cycle

and enquired the matter in the presence of witnesses P.W. 8/Rajendran and one Murugesan, at 1.30 p.m., the accused gave a voluntary

confession, in which, he stated that he is ready to hand over the hidden material objects. The admitted portion of the confession statement given by

the accused was marked as Exhibit P4. In pursuance of that, he handed over M.O. 1/gold chain, M.O. 4/motor bike, M.O. 6/an unbroken soda

bottle and M.O. 2/knife with rexin cover and seized all the material objects under Seizure mahazar Exhibit P5. Then P.W. 11 went to the police

station at 11. p.m. and on the very next day, he sent the accused for judicial custody and examined P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 and recorded their

statements. The material objects were also sent to the concerned Court.

(v) On 4.3.2004, P.W. 11 gave a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore, to conduct a test Identification parade. On his

request, Identification parade was conducted on 18.3.2004 by P.W. 9 Sujatha, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore. The

requisition sent by P.W. 11 and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was marked as Exhibit P-6 and the proceedings of test Identification

parade has been marked as Exhibit P-7. P.W. 1 was asked to identify the accused, accordingly, the accused was identified in the Identification

parade. After completing his investigation, P.W. 11 filed a charge sheet against the accused/appellant herein for the offence as stated above.

The learned trial Judge placed the incriminating evidence against the accused u/s 313(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. and the accused denied the same and

stated that he had not committed such offence. On his side, the accused examined D.W. 1 and marked the documents Exhibits D-1 and D-2

stating that P.W. 8 was cited as P.W. 5 in C.C. No. 209 of 2004. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted

the accused for the offence under Sections 392 read with 397 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, Ms. M. Rajamani, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. Because of his poor financial status, he was implicated in so many cases. The

evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that P.W. 8 Rajendran is one of the witnesses in one case and he

also deposed against the appellant herein in that case. That factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Since the accused is bald headed

person, in the Identification parade all the witnesses were identified him easily. So, the Identification parade is not conducted in accordance with

law. The trial Court has not considered the aspects in proper perspective. Hence, she prayed that a benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the

accused and acquitted him.

Resisting the same, Mr. C. Emalias, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that as P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are eye witnesses, they

identified the accused easily. Further, the accused has been facing so many cases. It is a clear case of chain snatching and the vehicle M.O. 4 used

by the appellant/accused, was also involved in the previous case for the similar nature of offence. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1

and P.W. 2 is cogent and natural and there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5. So, the trial Court considered all the

aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court

does not warrant any interference and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.

The alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 24.2.2004, at 17.00 hours and Exhibit P-1 complaint has been given to P.W.

11/Inspector of Police, at 17.45 hours. While considering the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, P.W. 2/Sharmina was wearing the gold chain M.O.

1 and the chain was allegedly snatched by the accused. P.W. 1/Suresh Narayanan, who is her husband, was also present at the time of

occurrence. Since there is no enmity between P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the accused, there is no reason for them, to depose against the accused.

It is also pertinent to note that the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 24.2.2004. On 26.2.2004, the material object M.O.

1/chain was identified by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 has been corroborated by independent witnesses

namely, P.W. 3/Kuppuraj, P.W. 4/Manickaraj and P.W. 5/Arumugam. In my opinion, there is no reason for discarding their evidence. So, I am of

the view that the appellant/accused herein has committed the offence using M.O. 2 knife and snatched the chain M.O. 1 from P.W. 2. When the

public P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were trying to catch the accused, he hurled soda bottles and disturbed the peace and sped away from the place of

occurrence. P.W. 11 after receiving the complaint Exhibit P1, he registered a case at 5.45 p.m. and went to the place of occurrence and prepared

observation mahazar at 6.45 p.m., within an hour and seized M.O. 3 soda bottle and M.O. 5 soda bottle neck pellet under Exhibit P2/seizure

mahazar. That has been corroborated by P.W. 6 Gangadharan, one of the attestors of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar. So, the argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that no such occurrence had been taken place, does not merit acceptance.

The accused was arrested on 25.2.2004 before P.W. 8/Rajendran, who is one of the attestors. It is true, as per Exhibit D-1, P.W. 8

Rajendran was examined as P.W. 5 in C.C. No. 209 of 2004. As per Exhibit D-2, P.W. 8 was one of the witnesses, merely because P.W. 8 is a

witness in one case against the appellant, is not a reason for discarding the evidence of P.W. 8. Furthermore, as per Exhibit D-1, in that case,

P.W. 8 was turned hostile. As per the evidence of P.W. 11, it would clearly prove a bout the seizure of M.O. 1 chain, which was identified by

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and that factum has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

It is true, P.W. 9/Sujatha, learned Judicial Magistrate conducted identification parade on the request made by P.W. 11 under Exhibit P-6 and

the proceedings of the test identification parade was marked as Exhibit P-7. But here learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the

appellant is a bald headed person, it is easy for the witnesses to identify the accused. But, in my opinion, that argument does not hold good. As

already stated that there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5, who are eye witnesses and they identified the accused in the

Court also. Furthermore, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the appellant not only involved in this case, he

has been involved in five more cases in the same nature of offence u/s 379 IPC, but all of them are pending. In such circumstances, I am of the

view, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was easily identified because of his bald head, does not

merit acceptance.

As per the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5., it would clearly prove that the accused/appellant alone had snatched the gold chain M.O. 1 from

P.W. 2 and when they were trying to catch him, he furled the knife and also thrown the soda bottle and disturbed the peace among the public, who

were standing in the bus stand and sped away from the place of occurrence. Immediately, after the occurrence, Exhibit P-1 complaint has been

given by P.W. 1 and M.O. 3 and M.O. 5 were seized from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P-2. M.O. 1/gold chain has been seized from

the accused and the same was identified by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 before the Court. Therefore, I am of the view, the prosecution has proved that the

accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 392 read with 397 IPC. The trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came

to the correct conclusion. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court does not suffer any illegality or irregularity and therefore, it is

hereby confirmed.

As per the quantum of sentence is concerned, since the accused punishable u/s 392 read with 397 IPC, sentence of seven years rigorous

imprisonment and a fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- were awarded by the trial Court. In my considered view, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is

a minimum sentence and hence, it is fair and proper and therefore, it is hereby confirmed. In fine,

(i) Criminal appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

(iii) Bail bond, executed by the appellant/accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

(iv) The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.