SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused/appellant, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 392 r/w 397 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years r. I. , has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: P. W. 1, Rajendran, is running a Hotel, namely, Rajendra hotel at Arachalur, Erode District. THE accused was working as Tea Master under p. W. 1 for some time. THEre was a dispute between them as to the payment of wages. Hence, the accused left the job. On 18. 6. 2001 at 1. 00 p. m. , the accused came to the shop of P. W. 1 and demanded Rs. 300/- as balance of his wages. When the same was refused by P. W. 1, the accused took the knife, threatened him and took away the cash of Rs. 150/- from the cash box of P. W. 1. P. Ws. 2 and 3 witnessed the said occurrence. P. W. 1 lodged a complaint under Ex. P. 1 to P. W. 5, grade I Constable attached to Arachalur Police Station. On the strength of ex. P. 1, P. W. 5 registered a case in Crime No. 81 of 2001 under Section 392 r/w 397 I. P. C. Ex. P. 6, Express F. I. R. was despatched to the concerned Judicial magistrate. P. W. 6, Inspector of Police attached to Arachalur Police Station took up investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 2 observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and Ex. P. 7 rough sketch. He examined P. Ws. 1,2,3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, he arrested the accused and recorded the confessional statement in front of the witnesses. THE admissible portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ex. P. 4. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused produced m. O. 1, knife, M. Os. 2 and 3 Rs. 70, which were recovered in the presence of the witnesses under Ex. P. 3 and Ex. P. 5 mahazar and recorded the statement of P. W. 4. On completion of investigation on 1. 8. 2001, P. W. 6 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 392 r/w 397 I. P. C.

(3.) ADDED to the above evidence, the prosecution has also relied on the confessional statement given by the accused, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P. W. 4. Pursuant to which, the subject matter of robbery marked as M. Os. 2 and 3 and M. O. 1 knife were seized. This part of the evidence would clinchingly prove the nexus between the accused and the crime in question. Under the stated circumstances, all or any one of the contentions put forth by the appellant's side at the time of argument were of no consequence. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Coming to the question of sentence, the lower court has awarded minimum punishment under Section 392 r/w 397 I. P. C. This Court is of the considered view that except the fact that he was holding the knife in his hands at the time of occurrence, there is nothing to show that he has caused any injury or he came there with an intention to cause death. According to the prosecution, no injury was caused to P. W. 1 by the accused at the time of occurrence. Hence, it is a case where he has got to be convicted under Section 392 I. P. C. simplicitor.