KAMAL ALIAS KAMALAHASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been brought forth by the petitioner herein who was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case can be briefly stated thus: a case was registered on the file of Tiruppur North Police Station in Crime No. 629 of 2000 against the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 IPC on the allegation that he committed theft of a motor cycle belonging to one Karuppusamy (PW1) on 27. 06. 2000 at about 19. 00 hours, when the said motor cycle had been parked in front of Viswam Mess, Kongu Main Road, Thiruppur. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused changed the number plate by displaying a bogus Registration No. TN-59-D-7664 and was caught by the Police on 30. 05. 2000 at about 5. 00 a. m. After investigation,p. W. 5, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a final report on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C. C. No. 65 of 2001. After appearance of the petitioner/accused, necessary charge was framed and the petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed, five witnesses were examined, six documents were marked and one material object was produced on the side of the prosecution. The complaint lodged by PW1 and the First Information Report prepared in the printed format have been marked as Exs. P1 and P5 respectively. The Observation Mahazar and the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer for the place from where the Motor Cycle was allegedly stolen by the accused have been marked as Exs. P. 2 and P6 respectively. The admissible part of the confession statement of the petitioner/accused leading to the discovery of the fact that the motor cycle which he was using was the one found missing as per the complaint of PW1 has been marked as Ex. P. 3 whereas the seizure mahazar for the recovery of motor cycle has been marked as Ex. P. 4. The motor cycle itself has been produced before the trial Court and has been marked as M. O. 1. P. W. 2 Palanisamy and P. W. 3 Elango are the attestors of Observation Mahazar. P. W. 4 Loganathan is the person in whose presence, the confession statement by the accused was recorded and the motor cycle was recovered under Ex. P. 4, Seizure mahazar. After investigation, P. W. 5, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a final report on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C. C. No. 65 of 2001. After appearance of the petitioner/accused, necessary charge was framed and the petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed, five witnesses were examined, six documents were marked and one Material object was produced on the side of the prosecution.

(3.) WHEN the incriminating materials found in the evidence of the prosecution were pointed out to the accused and the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C, he denied them to be false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused. The trial Court, after considering the evidence brought before it, came to be conclusion that the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by Judgment dated 04. 11. 2004 in C. C. No. 65 of 2001.