General, Judgements

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 :  

1. R. Shah, J.
2. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

5. 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