Jothi vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.T. Selvam, J.

This revision challenges the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court II, Salem, passed in C.A.No. 186 of 2007 on 29.05.2008 modifying the judgment of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur, passed in S.C.No. 89 of 2005 on 28.11.2007.

The prosecution case was that on 30.01.2004, at about 07.30 p.m., all the accused illegally entered into the jewellery shop of the complainant, threatened him at knife point and took away cash of Rs.3,150/-, a pair of gold studs and a pair of silver anklets. Upon the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police for offences u/s. 392 r/w 397 IPC. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The case was tried in S.C.No. 89 of 2005 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur.

Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, marked 12 exhibits and 5 material objects. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.

On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court while acquitting the petitioners of offence u/s. 397 IPC convicted them for offence u/s. 392 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 3 months S.I. There against, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C.A.No. 186 of 2007 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Salem. Under judgment dated 29.05.2008. The appellate Court while confirming the fine imposed on petitioners, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one of 6 months R.I. Hence, this revision.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

Learned counsel for petitioners initially made submissions pointing out certain discrepancies as to the time of registration of First Information Report spoken to differently by the prosecution witnesses, raised a doubt regards the proper conduct of identification parade informing that PW-8, Investigative Officer and PW-6, Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, were at variance regards the date thereof and further that the arrest and seizure duly were not proved since it is the evidence of PW-5, Village Administrative Officer, that the accused persons were at the police station and confessions and recovery were effected there at.

This Court, on consideration of such submissions, finds that the discrepancy on the time of registration of FIR merely was a period of one hour and that a perusal of the record left no doubt that the Investigative Officer had mistakenly informed the dates of Identification Parade and further the evidence of PW-5, Village Administrative Officer, makes clear that he had been to the police station only upon being informed of the arrest of the accused and that recovery had been effected pursuant to confessional statement made by A1 and from her. There really is not too much doubt in the prosecution case. On being so informed, learned counsel for petitioners restricts himself to the question of sentence. Learned counsel submits that all the four accused are women, poor agricultural labourers, each of them having two minor children and that they have not involved in any other offence whatsoever. Learned counsel further submits that A1 has already undergone 4 1/2 months imprisonment. Other accused have undergone 3 1/2 months imprisonment.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the age of the petitioners, that they belong to the lower strata of society and have children to take care of, particularly, they have not come to adverse notice in any other case, this Court while confirming the conviction and sentence of fine, alters the sentence of imprisonment to one of imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

This Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above modification.