STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. DURAISAMY AND RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the State is against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam acquitting both these Respondents -accused of the charge under Section 120 -B, I.P.C., and acquitting the second Respondent/second accused of the charges under Sections 451, 380, 201 and 419 read with section, 34, I.P.C.

(2.) THESE two Respondents were accused of several offences. Charge No. 1 was under Section 120 -B, I.P.C, in that they along with the approver, P.W.1, during the month of August, 1973, entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit theft of idol in Ambaravaneswarar temple in Hukkur village by substituting the real idol with a counterfeit one. Both the accused have been acquitted of the said charge. Charge No. 2 was under Section 451, I.P.C., in that on or about the same day, the accused 1 and 2 committed house trespass by entering into the building of Ambaravaneswarar temple to commit theft. The first accused has been convicted of the said charge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The second accused has been acquitted. The third charge is under Section 380, I.P.C., in that they, at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction they committed theft of Ursava Thaniamman idol in Ambaravaneswarar temple in Hukkur village. The first accused has been convicted of the said charge and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year while the second accused has been acquitted. The fourth charge is under Section 201, I.P.C, against both the accused in that they, at the same date, time and place and in the course of the same transaction, committed the theft of the idol of Ursava Thaniamman by substituting in its place a duplicate one, and thereby caused disappearance of the evidence of theft. The first accused was convicted of the said charge and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year; the second accused has been acquitted of the said charge. The fifth and the final charge is under Section 419 read with Section 34, I.P.C, in that these two accused at the same date, time and place and in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of their common intention substituted the counterfeit idol in the place of the original idol of Ursava Thaniamman in Ambaravaneswarar temple at Hukkur. Here again, the first accused has been convicted of the said charge and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year while the second accused has been acquitted.

(3.) THE stolen idol was handed over to the second accused by the first accused to be sold, but, the second accused, after several months, returned the idol representing that he was not able to sell it.