SURESHKUMAR ALIAS SURESN ALIAS SURAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused before the trial court, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. Under Section 397 I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. has preferred this criminal appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can briefly be stated as follows: a) On 24.7.1999 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1, milk vendor, after supplying of the milk to society, parked his M.O.2 cycle in front of a shop near Maharaja Bakery, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. At that time, the appellant/accused took M.O.2 cycle, which was objected to by P.W.1. The appellant/accused took M.O.1, knife and threatened P.W.1 that if he came nearby, he would stab him. P.Ws.2 and 3, who were present at that place and witnessed the said incident, were about to interfere and were also criminally intimidated with dire consequence by the appellant. The appellant took away M.O.2, cycle , from the said place. b) P.W.1 rushed to P-6 Police Station at about 7.15 p.m. and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.5, Inspector of Police. On the strength of which, P.W.5 registered a case in Crime No.774/99 under Sections 392 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The printed F.I.R under Ex.P.6 was sent to concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. P.W.5 took up investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.7 Observation Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses and Ex.P.8, rough sketch. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 25.7.1999 at about 6.30 a.m., when the accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer, he volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnessed, namely, P.W.4 and the other witness. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused/appellant took the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses and produced M.O.1 knife and M.O.2,cycle subject matter of theft. They were also recovered by the Investigating Officer in front of the said witnesses under a Mahazar. The accused was remanded to judicial custody and the properties so recovered were also entrusted to the court custody. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) r/w 75 I.P.C.

(3.) In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and 2 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witness, which was flatly denied by the accused as false. No defence witnesses were examined. After consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the materials available, the trial court found the appellant/accused guilty under Sections 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment as stated above.