SAKHTI AILAS SATHIYANARAYANANAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chingleput, in C. A. No. 61 of 1988 confirming the conviction and sentence of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, in S. C. No. 106 of 1986 for the offences under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 397, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 1 -9-84 at about 6.45 p.m., these revision petitioners along with two others entering into the business premises of one Saravanakumar, extracted Rs. 37,420.00 at the knife-point. P.W. 1, the owner of the Vishal Enterprises is the complainant. The occurrence has been narrated by his Manager P.W. 2 Sharma and P.W. 3, Logananthan, an employee in the business. P.W. 1, was a dealer in cigarettes and his place of business is No. 54, Third Street, I Sector, K. K. Nagar. It is the version of P.W. 2 that on 1-9-84 at about 6.45 p.m. P.W. 3 was taking the stock in a room, adjoining his room in the front where he was attending to his work and the second accused (petitioner in Cri. R. C. 245/89) entered into the room followed by the other accused. According to P.W. 2, the second accused (petitioner in Cri. R. C. 245/ 89) while entering the room, asked him whether the driver was available and within seconds, he saw the second accused (petitioner in Cri. R. C. 245/89) with a revolver in his hand while others were having knives and threatening to stab him if he raised his voice, they opened the drawer and took out the entire cash. He has also stated that with his shirt which was kept on table, they gagged his mouth and also tied him along with the chair in which he was sitting, by a nylon rope and when P.W. 3 happened to come there, on seeing them, he ran away through the back door. The accused after collecting the entire cash from the drawer, made their escape. P.W 3 would also state that these accused while entering the room, threatened P.W. 2 with a pistol in the hand of the second accused and on seeing this, he ran out through the back door and though he requested the neighbour to help them, he was not prepared to come out and therefore, he returned after sometime. After these dacoits left the room, P.W. 2 informed this to P.W. 1, the proprietor of Vishal Enterprises, who set the law in motion by giving the complaint under Ex. P-1. Therefore, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged robbery. These accused were arrested in connection with some other crime by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvottiyur, and P.Ws. 5 and 6 have deposed how the first accused in the case was caught, after a hot chase on 21 -11 -84 in Porur near Venkateswara Saw Mill. P.W. 5, a rest dent of Porur, has stated that on 21-11 -84 at about 3.30 p.m., the first accused and another, who got down from a van, moved quickly, when someone within the van was shouting for help and after ascertaining from those in the van that they were victims of robbery, they chased the first accused in this case and caught him with cash of Rs. 35,000 and odd and thereafter, he was handed over to Virugambakkam Police Station. P.W. 6, the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam, has spoken about the production of the first accused in the Police Station by P.W. 5 and some others and on interrogation, the other accused were traced and their commission of robbery in different places came to light. According to H P.W. 6, from the confession made by the first f accused, he was able to find out, that these petitioners and other accused were the persons who entered into the premises of Vishal Enterprises on 1-9-84.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that as K P.Ws. 2 and 3 have identified these petitioners H as the persons who entered into the building to commit dacoity, the case against these revision petitioners and other accused is established by the prosecution and convicted them in the manner stated above. Of the four accused, the second and third accused alone have preferred these revisions.