(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 26.06.2007 passed in SC. No. 163/2003 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, thereby (a) convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under section 3(1) of TNPPD Act to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment, (b) convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under section 332 of IPC to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment, (c) convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 392 to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment, (d) convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under section 506(2) of IPC to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and (e) ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THE case of the Prosecution is that on 29.7.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. at Pillaiyarpatti Village, the Appellant traveled in the bus bearing Reg.No.TN -49 -0237 as passenger. He had quarrel with the driver of the said bus and he had damaged the wind screen worth about Rs.500/ - and during the same course of occurrence, he robbed an amount of Rs.450/ - from the driver of the said bus. Hence, the Appellant was charge sheeted under sections 332, 392 and 506 (ii) of IPC read with Section 3 of TN.PPD Act.
(3.) MR . M. Karunanidhi, the learned counsel for the Appellant would strenuously contend that the findings of the Trial Court that the Prosecution has proved the charge under Section 392 of IPC is unsustainable in the absence of any legal evidence and that too necessary ingredients are totally absent. The learned counsel would point out to the evidence of the driver and conductor, PW.1 and PW.2 that there was a quarrel between PW.1 and the Appellant/accused and when the latter dragged him in the course of the said quarrel, the money purse and identity card of PW.1 went into to the hands of the accused and therefore, the ingredients of Section 392 of IPC was not made out.