Krishnamurchy vs Union Territory of Pondicherry, by the Station House Officer Grand Bazar Police Station, Pondicherry

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the conviction

and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry u/s 379, I.P.C., against the Petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

(sic) 1 1/2 years.

The case of the prosecution is that on 4th December, 1981, at 19:30 hours at the junction of Rangapilai Street and Mission Street, Pondicherry,

while P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 2 were proceeding to Manakula Vinayagar temple, the Petitioner came behind on a cycle and snatched the

necklace from the neck of P.W. 2. Since P.W. 2 resisted with her hand, one portion of the necklace alone was taken by the Petitioner and the

other portion was retained in the hand of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 chased the Petitioner with the help of people nearby, caught hold of the Petitioner and

took him to the police station. Nothing was seized from the Petitioner at that time. P.W. 2 produced the portion of the necklace retained in his

hand and it was marked as M.O.1. P.W. 3, rickshaw-puller produced the dollar of the necklace (M.O. 2)at 18 hours on the same day

representing that it was found lying on the road side of the junction of Mission street. To prove the charge against the Petitioner, the prosecution

examined 5 witnesses, filed three exhibits and marked M. Os. 1 and 2.

The Petitioner, when examined u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the evidence of the prosecution and contended that when he was

going on a cycle in the Vaikkal Street, a person coming from the opposite direction dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and at

that time, P.W.I and other people came there and caught hold of him.

Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of the prosecution and found the Petitioner guilty of the offence for which he was charged

and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner mainly contended that both the Courts below have erred in accepting the interested testimony of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 and convicting the Petitioner, that the non-examination of the independent witness, who is alleged to have. chased the Petitioner is

fatal to the prosecution and that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is artificial and unbelievable and hence, the conviction of the Petitioner is not

sustainable.

I have carefully considered the concurrent findings of both the courts below and the evidence on record in the light of the criticisms levelled

against the prosecution by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel. In the

instant case, the Petitioner was chased and caught red banded and produced before the police and a report was given immediately along with the

portion of the jewel torn to the police. The other portion of the jewel was produced by P.W. 3. P.W. 4 has attested the complaint as well as the

mahazar. P.W. 4 was not even cross-examined and his evidence was not even challenged. The evidence of P.W. 3 was also not disputed with

reference to his production of the portion of the jewel (M.O. 2). Except the fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife, there is absolutely

nothing in their evidence to discredit their testimony. As observed by the courts below, their evidence is cogent and convincing and there was no

motive for them to foist the case against the Petitioner by leaving the real culprit. The non-examination of the passers-by, who have also joined

P.W. 2 at the time of the chase and caught hold of the Petitioner and later left the place will not in any way affect the prosecution case and both the

courts below have assigned convincing reasons to repel the said contention.

As observed by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, 1976 1 S.C.J. 552 the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal

revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appraisal of evidence.

The Supreme Court also in State of Orissa Vs. Nakula Sahu and Others, while dealing with the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise

of the revisional power has observed as follows:

Although the revisions power of the High Court u/s 439 read with Section 435 is as wide as the power of High Court of Appeal u/s 423 of the

Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a

glaring defect in the procedure as there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.

In the instant case, neither the trial Court nor the appellate court has committed any error of fact or of law in arriving at the conclusion and I do

not find any defect in the procedure or any perversity or manifest illegality in the concurrent finding of the both the Courts below. Hence, I confirm

the conviction of the Petitioner.

Lastly, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is the first offender, that he is about 27 years and nothing was

recovered from him and major portion of the jewel was recovered from P.Ws. 2 and 3, that he had been in jail from list August, 1983 and that, in

any event, the sentence of (sic) 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment is unduly severe and excessive, and hence, he may be dealt with leniently.

Hiving regard to the circumstances of the case, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the

period of nine months rigorous imprisonment.

With the above observation in sentence, this revision is dismissed.