G SIVALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner calls in question the legality of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2004 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No. 24 of 2003 by THE Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam.

(2.) THE crux of the prosecution case can be stated like thus: P.W.1 Murugaiyan is working in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. He know the accused. On 3.8.2003, a watchman by name Govindaraj and a Priest by name Malesivam had reported that the bow attached to Singaravelar Stature was missing. P.W.1 had immediately gone to the place of occurrence and he conducted enquiry. On 4.8.2003, he lodged a Police complaint and the same had been marked as Ex.P.1. On 6.8.2003, P.W.1 had received an information from the Police Station that the said how had been recovered and the same had been marked as Ex.P.1.

(3.) WHEN the accused had been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence had been adduced on the side of the accused.