JUDGEMENT OVERVIEW
COURT : Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
JUDGEMENT NAME : GANESAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER Appeal (Crl.), 903 of 2021,
JUDGEMENT DATE : Oct 29, 2021
RELATED SECTIONS : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 395 – Punishment for dacoity
Section 397 – Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH :
- R. Shah, J.
- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. Nos. 405 and 429 of 2012 by
which the High Court has dismissed the said revision applications
and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Learned
trial Court confirmed by Learned First Appellate Tribunal – Learned
Sessions Court convicting the appellants herein – original accused
no.1 and accused no.4 for the offence under Section 397 IPC present
appeals are preferred.
- Criminal Appeal No.903 of 2021 has been preferred by the
accused Ganesan as original accused – A1 and Criminal Appeal
No.904 of 2021 has been preferred by the accused Shanmugam @
Babu – A3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially the
charge-sheet was filed against five persons for the offences
punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Ganesan was
shown as A1, one Benny who at the relevant time was absconding
was shown as A2, one Prabhakaran was shown as A3, Shanmugam
@ Babu was shown as A4 and one Shajahan was shown as A5.
However, at the relevant time A2 – Benny and A5 – Shajahan
absconded, the trial was then separated and post-trial, Ganesan was
shown as A1, Prabhakaran was shown as A2 and Shanmugam was
shown as A3. Benny was subsequently arrested after a period of 15
years and therefore he was tried separately and vide judgment and
order dated 15.11.2018 he has been acquitted (acquittal of Benny
shall be dealt with hereinafter).
- As per the case of the prosecution, with the intention of robbery
jointly by the accused – A1 to A5 at about 8:00 pm on 19.08.1996
proceeded in a car bearing No.T.N. 31 8686 from Cuddalore with
knife and iron pipe and reached Panruti. A1 – Ganesan stayed in the
car and sent A2 to A5. As per the plan A2 to A5 committed robbery of
Rs.60,000/-. As per the case of the prosecution, PW1 – Duraisamy
came with the bicycle near Vallalar Street, Panruti where they pushed
him and A3 Prabhakaran attacked with iron rod on the head and right-
hand finger and injured him and one among accused 2 to 5 plucked
the bag hanging in the handle bar of cycle of witness Duraisamy
containing Rs.60,000/- and 16 gram jewellery and ran away. As per
the case of the prosecution, when the witness Palanivel prevented
the accused 2 to 5 from escaping, A2 (Benny) assaulted witness
Palanivel on the head and hand with the rod he was having and tried
to escape and accused 3, 4 and 5 escaped and ran away from the
place along with the above-mentioned bag. After conclusion of the
investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet against
five accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 395
read with Section 397 IPC. Even the charges were framed against
five accused persons. However, as A3 – Benny and A5 – Shajahan
absconded, the trial was split and the trial proceeded against
Ganesan, Prabhakaran and Shanmugam. In the trial Ganesan was
shown as A1, Prabhakaran was shown as A3 and Shanmugam was
shown as A4. It is reported that even Shajahan is still absconding.
That the accused denied the charges and therefore they were put to
trial by the Learned Magistrate. During the trial, to prove the case
against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 15
witnesses. Prosecution examined Thiru Duraisamy as PW1,
complainant and the injured eye-witness Thiru Palanivel as PW2,
Thiru Aravind Kumar and Thiru Ashok Kumar as PW3 and PW4
respectively. Prosecution examined Thiru Shanmugam as PW5,
Doctor Thiru Elangovan as PW10 who gave treatment to PW1.
Prosecution also examined the I.O. Thiru Subramanian as PW13.
Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution also brought on
record the documentary evidences. On appreciation of entire
evidence on record, both, the oral as well as the documentary, the
Learned trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2010 in
S.C. No.363 of 2009 convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 397 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 7
years RI each and in default to further undergo one year RI.
- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
of conviction passed by the Learned trial Court convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and
imposing the sentence of 7 years RI, accused Ganesan and
Shanmugam – A1 and A3 respectively (preferred appeal bearing
Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2010 before the Learned Sessions Court).
That by judgment and order dated 03.01.2012, the Learned Sessions
Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court. The High
Court by the impugned Judgment and order has confirmed the
conviction under Section 397 IPC.
- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in dismissing the Revision Applications and
confirming the conviction under Section 397 IPC, A1 Ganesan has
preferred Criminal Appeal No.903 of 2021 and A3 Shanmugam has
preferred Criminal Appeal No.904 of 2021. As observed hereinabove
subsequently after a period of 15 years from the occurrence of the
offence original accused no.2 – Benny was apprehended and he
came to be tried separately. In Sessions Case No.12 of 2018 and by
its judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 he has been acquitted.
Acquittal of accused Benny shall be discussed and considered
hereinbelow.
DOWNLOAD FULL JUDGEMENT :- CLICK HERE
GANESAN