CRL A/120/2022 of J.NAGOOR MIRAN Vs STATE REP BY on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the Judgment passed in S.C.No.79 of 2015 holding the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 394 r/w 397 and 450 IPC and sentencing him to to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. The sentences were ordered to concurrently.

2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.07.2014, the appellant entered the house of the defacto complainant/PW1 at about 03.30 p.m.; that four days prior to the occurrence, on 06.07.2014, the appellant had gone to the house of PW1 and had expressed his desire to take the house on lease; that therefore, on the date of occurrence ie., 10.07.2014, PW1, permitted the appellant to enter the house; that the appellant after entering the house threatened the victim of causing hurt by showing a knife and caused injury on the stomach of the victim; that the defacto complainant had removed her gold chain weighing 6 sovereigns and handed it over to the appellant.

(ii) The victim lodged a complaint Ext.P1 on the same day. Thereafter, PW5, Inspector of Police registered an FIR, which was marked as Ext.P9, in Crime No.157 of 2014 for the offences under Section 394 IPC. PW6 commenced the investigation and prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch. That on 11.07.2014, at about 09.30 a.m., when the appellant was intercepted on suspicion, he confessed his involvement in the occurrence and thereafter, PW6 arrested the appellant. The appellant gave a confession statement, on the basis of which, a knife and a gold chain weighing 6 sovereigns were seized under seizure mahazar Ext.P13.

(iii) Thereafter, after examining the other witnesses, PW6 filed the final report for the offences under Sections 450, 392 r/w 397 and 394 r/w 397 IPC. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 450 and 394 r/w 397 IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty’.

(iv) Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked 14 documents. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

(v) The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 394 r/w 397 and 450 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

3. Heard Mr.M. Mohana Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Ms. Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even according to PW1, the occurrence took place outside her house. Therefore, the offence under Section 450 IPC would not be made out; that no identification parade was conducted to identify the accused; that the arrest and recovery on the basis of the confession cannot be believed; and therefore, the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that PW1’s evidence is cogent and convincing; that her evidence is corroborated by PW2, her husband, who came to the house on hearing about the occurrence; and that PW4, on hearing the alarm raised by PW1, had corroborated the evidence of PW2 and would depose about the injuries caused to PW1.

6. As stated above, the prosecution had examined 6 witnesses to prove its case. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the husband of PW1 and also is a mahazar witness, who had signed in confessions statement Ext.P4 and seizure mahazar Ext.P5. PW3 is the doctor working as CMC, Vellore and made entries in the accident register Ext.P6 and wound certificate Ext.P7 and had opined that the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. PW4, who was examined by prosecution to prove that he heard the alarm raised by PW1, turned hostile. PW5 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. PW6 is the Investigation Officer as stated above.

7. The evidence of PW1 would suggest that the occurrence took place outside the house, though it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant entered the house. The relevant portion of PW1’s evidence reads as follows; M$h; vjphpia bjhpa[k;/ M$h; vjphp 10/07/2014 njjpf;f Kd;g[ “ "hapw;W fpHik xU ehs; tPL thliff;F nfl;L te;jpUe;jhh;/ vd; fzth; FLk;g egh;fs; vd;why; jhd; thliff;F tPL bfhLg;nghk ; Bachularf;F tPL thliff;F bfhLf;f khl;nlhk; vd;W Twpdhh;/ 10/07/2014k; njjp fhiy fy;Yhhp brd;Wtpl;L kjpak; 2 kzpf;F tPl;ow;F jpUk;gpndd;/ kjpak ; Rkhh ; 3/00?3/30 kzpastpy ; vjphp vd ; tPl;od; nfl;ow;F Kd;ghf fhk;gt[d;ow;Fs; vy;bkl; nghl;L epd;wpUe;jhh;/ ehd; mthplk; vd;d tptuk; vd;W nfl;nld;/ mjw;F tPL thliff;F bgw ml;thd;!; bfhLf;f te;Js;nsd; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ ehd; tPl;od; nfl;il jpwe;J btspapy; te;njd;/ ml;thd;! ; bjhif bfhL';fs ; vd;W nfl;nld;/ mjw;F vjphp jdJ Kjfpd; gpd;dhy; khl;oapUe;j ngf;fpypUe;J fj;jpia vLj;J vdJ tapw;wpd; nky; gFjpapy; fj;jpahy; Fj;jptpl;lhh; (rhl;rp jdJ ,lJ tapw;wpd; gFjpia fhl;o fhaj;ij fhz;gpj;jhh;)/ ehd ; fPnH tpGe;J tpl;nld;/ clnd mth ; brapid fHw;wp bfhLf;fpwhah ,y;iy fj;jpahy; kPz;Lk; Fj;jth vd;W brhd;dhh;/ clnd ehd; brapid fHw;wp bfhLj;J tpl;nld;/ mth ; brapid vLj;J tpl;L btspapy; brd;whh;/”

8. Thus, it is seen that the occurrence took place outside the house of PW1. Therefore, the offence under Section 450 IPC is not made out, and the conviction under Section 450 IPC cannot be sustained.

9. As regards the attack made by the appellant and the robbery committed by him, the evidence of PW1 is cogent and convincing. PW3, had entered in the accident register that the victim had informed that she was assaulted by a knife by an known person at the left abdomen and issued would certificate Ext.P7 and referred to the injuries sustained by PW1 as follows;

“1.1.5 cm lacerated wound on left upper abdomen with depth till ribs. No evidence of intra- abdominal extension.

2. Fracture 9th rib”

10. The investigation officer has spoken about the arrest and seizure made pursuant to the confession of the accused/appellant. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. PW2 had supported the prosecution case and would speak about the seizure made from the appellant and about the signing Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 as a witness. PW1 had identified the chain that was seized from the appellant. It is seen that the gold chain was returned to her pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C., on the condition that the victim should produce a photograph of the jewel, which was marked as Ext.P3.

11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has established the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and there is no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. However, considering the age of the appellant and the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2014, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC.

12. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the finding of guilt for the offence under Section 450 IPC and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Vellore, Vellore District. Crime No. 157 of 2014.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge (Magalir Neethimandram) Vellore, Vellore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 120 of 2022 12-10-2026