Search This Blog

Friday, April 1, 2022

crime scenes that we read of .... the Prosecution and ..... appeal !!!!

One would have observed the fun in the name(s) of ‘Vadivelu’  Some of his characters are named as : Snake babu, Vandu Murugan, Nai Sekar, Theepporri Thirumugam, Telex Pandian……….in one of his films, he would proclaim himself to be a rowdy and would ask the Police to arrest him.. his common dialogue is ‘every rowdy needs a prefix [adaimozhi] to distinguish himself from others and become famous [notorious to be precise!]’… ‘Neeravi Murugan’ was in news – with that video doing rounds in You Tube, WA and other Social media – that of a woman being robbed at knife point on a road in Thuraipakkam in mid-noon.  It was unnerving to see the man  holding a big knife as the terrified woman takes off her jewellery and hands over the pieces.  After grabbing the gold, the man was seen jumping onto a bike driven by an accomplice and coolly getting away.   He was caught by Police,  dramatically fell at the feet of his victim in identification, and later in trying to escape from Police broke his leg !  
the bag snatching comedy from Kalakalappu !

We do read about crimes and forget them in a short time.  Getting them convicted in a long tedious process – it appears.  We have read about politicians and civil cases going on appeal against the judgment of lower court.  An appellate court,  [court of appeals] is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a Supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts.

Here is a Criminal case in the High Court of Judicature decided in Feb 2010. The  Criminal Appeal arose  out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by  Sessions Judge in 2003 convicting  the accused for the offence under Section 397 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.  In June 2002, a loadman residing at Varadamuthiappan Street, Chennai  purchased 1-1/2 sovereigns of gold chain from a jewellery shop and returned to his lorry shed.  He was robbed at knife point.   He raised alarm, some members of the public chased and caught them red-handed.   A complaint was lodged with the Police who arrested the accused and charged them under Section 397 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial Court, after following the procedures, framed charge against the accused for the offence u/s Sec. 397 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.  The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 

At the appeal, the Counsel contended that the appellant was not guilty of the offence and he did not possess the knife.   The  Prosecution contended that the accused had the motive to commit robbery and threatened the victim at knife point.  Considering the evidences  being cogent, natural and trustworthy and  the fact that  accused  was caught red-handed, the Hon’ble Court considered it of Section 397 IPC, which reads as follows:  **  Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt: If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."**

Extortion is "robbery", if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

The Court considering  evidence of  witnesses that A1 alone used the knife  and A.2 did not possess any deadly weapon, set aside the conviction of the Trial Court and stated that appellant is  found guilty of the offence under Section 395 IPC [punishment for dacoity], the Court reduced the sentence  from seven years to five years' rigorous imprisonment and dismissed the criminal appeal.   As the appellant was on bail, the Court directed to take steps to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. It also ruled that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/A.2, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

5th Mar 2015.

No comments:

Post a Comment