Peter @ Subramaniyam vs State by Inspector of Police

M. Chokalingam, J.—The sole accused in a case of robbery, who stood charged, tried under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(2) of the

Indian Penal Code and found guilty under Sections 392 and 397 and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 397 of the Indian

Penal Code and four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment u/s 392 and acquitted of

the charge u/s 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, has brought forth this appeal.

The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

PW.1, one Murugavel was working as a driver having his residence at Puliankulam. On 27.10.2000 at about 9.30 a.m. he went to KMCH

hospital, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and when he went to attend his nature''s call near a tea shop situated opposite to the hospital, the

accused/appellant came there, threatened him at knife point and snatched away his purse containing cash of Rs.220/- from his pocket. When

PW.1 raised alarm, some persons tried to secure him but by showing knife, he ran away from the site of occurrence. Immediately, PW.1 along

with PW.2 went to the Peelamedu Police station at about 11.00 a.m. and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint. On the strength of Ex.P.1, the Inspector of

Police, PW.6 registered a case in Crime No.450 of 2000 u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed FIR Ex.P.5 was despatched to the

Judicial Magistrate''s Court concerned immediately. The Inspector of Police took up the investigation. He proceeded to the site of occurrence,

made an inspection and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar in front of PW.3 and other witnesses and Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch. He examined

PWs.1 to 4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, by about 4.00 p.m. based on a secret information, the

Investigation Officer searched the accused and arrested him near Ramakrishna Marriage Hall, Avinasi Road, Coimbatore. At the time of arrest, the

accused/appellant made a confessional statement voluntarily in front of PW.5 and another witness by name Palanisamy. The same was recorded

by the Investigation Officer. Pursuant to the confessional statement, MO.1 money purse containing cash of Rs.220/-, and MO.2 his knife were

recovered under Ex.P.4 Mahazar in front of PW.5 and another witness. Thereafter, PW.6 examined PW.5 and other witnesses. The accused was

sent for judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused on 7.3.2000 under Sections 392 read

with 397 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked seven documents and

two MOs. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating

circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. No defence witness was examined. Neither exhibits nor material objects were

marked. The trial Court on consideration of the available materials and the rival submissions made, found the appellant guilty under Sections 392

and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment as referred to above though the lower Court acquitted him of

the charges u/s 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

Advancing his arguments for the appellant, the learned counsel would submit the following points for consideration of this Court. According to

the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m. but the case was registered on the complaint given by PW.1 only at about

11.00 a.m.,. It is pertinent to point out that the Police Station is situate nearly 4 KMs from the place of occurrence, and thus, there was delay in

lodging the complaint. No independent witness was examined. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place in a public place that

too near a hospital and a tea shop. Had it been so, the police would have examined a few witnesses but no independent witness was examined

before the trial Court and thus, what was available for the prosecution was the evidence of PW.1 who could speak to the incident. There were

discrepancies in the evidence of PW.5 on the aspect of arrest, confession and recovery of the MOs and hence the lower Court should not have

believed the evidence of PW.5. PW.1 has stated that he came to the site of occurrence along with the police officials by 10.30 a.m., but according

to the prosecution, the case itself was registered at 11 ''O'' clock and hence it casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, the

judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside and the accused/appellant has got to be acquitted.

Strongly opposing the above contentions on the appellant''s side, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the occurrence has taken

place at 9.30 a.m. when PW.1 was about to attend a call of nature. At that time, the appellant has robbed at knife point, the purse of PW.1 which

contained cash of Rs.220/-. It is pertinent to note that the persons aside made their attempt to chase and apprehend him, but he had intimidated

them with knife. Immediately, after the occurrence, PW.1 has proceeded to the Peelamedu Police Station and has lodged the complaint, and

thereafter, the case came to be registered. It is pertinent to point out that the accused/appellant was arrested on the very day and the subject

matter of robbery was recovered along with the knife which was held by the appellant at the time of occurrence, pursuant to the confession made

by the appellant, and thus, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused/appellant, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got

to be confirmed.

After careful analysis and appraisement of the evidence available, the Court is unable to notice any substance in this appeal.

From the evidence of PW.1, it would be clear that at the time of occurrence viz., at 9.30 a.m. on 27.10.2000 when he went to the hospital

situated on the Avinasi Road, Coimbatore, he went aside to attend nature''s call, and at that time, the appellant threatened him at knife point and

snatched away his purse containing Rs.220/-. This fact has been clearly spoken to by PW.1. On the complaint of PW.1, the case was registered

by PW.6 the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, who took up the investigation. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant/accused

was arrested in the evening of the same day at about 4.00 p.m. when he gave a confessional statement in the presence of PW.5 and other

witnesses pursuant to which MO.1 purse containing Rs.220/- and MO.2 the knife held by the accused at the time of occurrence were recovered.

The Court is unable to notice any discrepancy or anything to suspect or disbelieve the evidence of PW.5. The arrest of the accused on the very

same day, the confessional statement made by him and pursuant recovery of the subject matter of the robbery along with the knife held by him at

the occurrence time stood a clinching proof connecting the accused to the crime in question. It is true that no independent witness has been

examined on the side of the prosecution. Though the evidence of PW.1 was not corroborated by any independent witness, the recovery of MOs

pursuant to the confession coupled with the evidence of PW.1 would be suffice to hold that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused, and thus, the Court below was perfectly correct in finding him guilty under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower

Court has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution in respect of the charge u/s 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code in view of its finding on the

charges under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Coming to the question of sentence, the lower Court has awarded punishment of

rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of M. CHOKALINGAM, J. Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo further three months rigorous

imprisonment u/s 392 of the of the Indian Penal Code and seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s 397 of the of the Indian Penal Code. The lower

Court has given a minimum punishment available under the said provisions. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the sentence awarded to the appellant.

Hence, the appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.