JAGANNATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.101 of 2002 by its judgment dated 10.01.2003, sentencing A4 to undergo life imprisonment under section 394 read with 397 IPC and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- fine and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.1999, in the Vellore to Namakkal Main Road near Thirumanimuthar in Paramathi at about 8.45 p.m, the accused 1 to 4 came in a motorcycle and enquired PW.1 about a Kalyanamandapam at Maravapalayam and by having conversation, they had accompanied PW.1 and PW.2, who were traveling in another motorcycle and when they were nearing the bridge at Thirumanimuthar, A1 kicked the motorcycle of PW.1 and made PW.2 to fell down. THEreafter, the accused had stopped the motorcycle in which PW.1 was riding by going its opposite side and immediately all the four accused surrounded them with patta knife by putting knife on his right hand asked him to give the money he had. PW.1 after vexation and hesitation took a sum of Rs.460/- from his shirt inside pocket and gave it to them. THEreafter, the accused asked PW.2 to give all the jewelleries she was wearing and having said so, A1 forcibly removed the gold chain found around PW.2's neck and A1 pressed the knife on the right side of his stomach from which the blood was bleeding. PW.1 suffered pleading injuries on the palm, index finger and thumb and ultimately all the four accused went towards west in their motor cycle.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant / fourth accused Mr.C.D.Jonhson, would submit in his argument that even assuming that the entire prosecution case is true, the conviction of the accused under section 397 IPC cannot be sustained since the medical evidence shows that P.Ws 1 and 2 have sustained only simple injuries and if that is so, the conviction against the accused can be brought only under section 392 read with 394 IPC. He would further submit in his argument that the co-accused A1 to A3 had preferred appeals against the impugned judgments in Crl.A.No.450 of 2003 by A1 and Crl.A.No.897 of 2003 by A2 and A3 and the said appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 25.04.2006 and in the said judgment, it has been categorically found that all the four accused have got similar overt act against the witnesses and the evidence of Doctor PW.6, who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2 had opined that the witnesses have sustained simple injuries and however found that all the accused A1 to A4 had involved in the crime of committing dacoity against P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the incriminating objects would also go to show the involvement of the accused in the crime and finally the question of conviction of A1 to A3 was considered and the conviction of the accused under sections 394 read with 397 IPC was set aside and instead the accused are found guilty of offence under sections 394 read with 397 read with 34 IPC and each of them will stand sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and the fine amount already imposed was ordered to be retained. He would further submit that the present appellant figuring as A4 is also on the same footing like that of A1 to A3 and the judgment passed by this Court against A1 to A3 may be applied to the appellant also and accordingly conviction and sentence may be set aside and the modified conviction and sentence may be imposed against this appellant also.