D. JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14.8.2012, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was listed on 30.8.2012 under the caption "for dismissal". On 30.8.2012, at the request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.9.2012. On 20.9.2012 none appears on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 09.6.2015. Even on 09.6.2015, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was listed today under the caption ''for dismissal''. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2013) 3 SCC 721 [K.S. Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka], if the petitioner do not appear, there is no necessity for the Court, which is hearing the matter, to issue warrant for special notice or appoint any Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner. The Court is empowered to deal with the matter on merits and dispose of the same. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the first accused. The defacto complainant has given a complaint stating that while he was travelling in the bus, his cash bag was cut by a blade by the petitioner herein and when he raised alarm, A2 threatened him by showing a knife. It is also stated in the complaint that a sum of Rs. 49,800/ - was stolen by the accused. Based on the said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No. 692 of 2002 and charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in S.C. No. 146 of 206 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem. After due trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 394 Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default, to undergo 6 months simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2007 and the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Salem, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(3.) MR .T.Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant would contend that mere non - production of the blade as well as trip sheet are not fatal to the prosecution case and it is not a ground for acquittal. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2013) 6 SCC 595, Kashmiri Lal Vs State of Haryana, wherein, in paragraph No. 8.4, it was held that the non -production of the scooter in the Court cannot be ground for setting aside the conviction, since all the witnesses have specifically mentioned about the registration number of the Scooter and there is no justification to discard their testimony.? The learned Government Advocate would also contend that Pws.1 to 10 have given cogent and natural evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the Courts below after taking into consideration the entire evidence, especially, the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, injured witness, P.W.4 and P.W.5, have concurrently held that the accused had committed the offence. Therefore, the discrepancy pointed out by the accused will not vitiate the case of the prosecution in any manner.