RAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 398, 294(B), 307, 506(ii) and 324 IPC, before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District in S.C. No.36 of 2005, convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 324 IPC alone, acquitted for the other offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 324 IPC, has come forward with this criminal appeal challenging the conviction as well as sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows:- PW1 Balakrishnan, is an Ex-service man residing at Vellore. On 01.07.2004, at about 11.30 a.m. PW1 along with his brother-in-law Venkatesan was having a cup of tea at Kumar Tea Stall in Arani after parking his motor cycle TVS 50 XL bearing registration no. TNZ 6239 in front of the said Tea stall. While they were having their tea, the appellant/accused stealthy removed TVS 50 vehicle from the place where it had been parked. On seeing the accused leaving the said place along with the TVS 50 XL vehicle, PW1 chased him raising an alarm and intercepted him. At that juncture, the accused took up a pen knife and stabbed PW1 on the chest cursing him to die. Meanwhile PW2, Nilavazhagan, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Arani Police Station who was on rounds with other police personnel's came there and tried to catch hold of the accused. In such an attempt, PW2 sustained a stab injury on the right forehand as the accused aimed a blow with the said pen knife on PW1, which was blocked by him with his right hand. However, even after receiving the said injury PW2 was able to snatch the knife from the accused with the help of the other police personnel. Thus, the accused was caught and produced before PW6, Kannan the then Inspector of Police, Arani Police Station along with the knife and the stolen property, namely the TVS 50 XL motor cycle. PW1 and his brother-in-law Venkatesan also accompanied PW2 to the Police Station where he lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. PW3-Gunasekaran, who was also a Sub Inspector of Police attached to Arani Taluk Police Station, prepared Ex.P5-First Information Report, based on the said complaint, registered a case for offences under Sections 392, 307, 294(b), 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. PW6-Kannan, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P6-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P7-rough sketch, recorded the statement of the witnesses and recovered MO1-pen knife, MO2- TVS 50 XL and MO3-Banian. THE injured witnesses, namely PW1 and PW2 were sent to the hospital for treatment. THEy were examined and treated by PW5- Dr. Lakshmanana, who issued Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 accident registers. THE confession statement of the accused was also recorded in the presence of PW4-Palani and one Sekar. As PW6 was transferred before ever he could file the final report, his successor completed the investigation and submitted a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arani alleging that the appellant/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 398, 307, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.

(3.) ARGUING on behalf of the appellant, Mrs. D. Selvi, the learned legal aid counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the trial Court was against law; that the trial Court had failed to note the absence of proof of the ingredients of the offences for which, the appellant/accused was convicted; that there were material contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially PW1 and PW2 regarding the place of occurrence as well as other aspects; that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had not properly appreciated the fact that the observation mahazar as well as rough sketch prepared by the investigation officer did not correctly indicate the place/places of occurrence; that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge should have noticed the fact that there was a material contradiction regarding the prosecution version as to whether the accused was riding the TVS 50 XL motor vehicle or simply pulling the same when he was intercepted by PW1 and PW2; that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to notice that no independent witness except PW1(informant) was examined regarding the occurrence and that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge having come to the conclusion that the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 398, 307, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, would have acquitted him of the other offences under Sections 392 and 324 IPC also if he had properly appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that viewed from any point, the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 392 and 324 IPC was discrepant and erroneous capable of being corrected by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers and that this Court should hold him not guilty of the said offences also and set aside the conviction and acquit him of the said charges.