Madras HC Acquits Co-Accused In Jewellery Robbery After Complaint Said She Stayed Outside Victim’s Home

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conviction and sentences under Sections 451 and 394 IPC could stand where the prosecution material attributed the entry into the house and the infliction of injury to A1, while A2 remained outside.

The court held

The High Court allowed the revision, reversed the appellate judgment and the trial court’s finding and sentences, and acquitted A2 of the charges under Sections 451 and 394 IPC.

It also directed

It directed that A2 be set at liberty, that any fine paid be refunded, and that her bail bond be cancelled.

01Facts

Saroja alleged that A1, Sundari, entered her house, forcibly took her jewellery and injured her, while the revision petitioner/A2 stood outside.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 13

Saroja died before trial; her husband, son and daughter-in-law testified, but the court treated them as hearsay witnesses.

p. 8 · ¶ 13

The trial court convicted A1 and A2 under Sections 451 and 394 IPC, and the appellate court affirmed A2’s conviction and sentences.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3

A2 challenged those decisions in revision.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conviction and sentences under Sections 451 and 394 IPC could stand where the prosecution material attributed the entry into the house and the infliction of injury to A1, while A2 remained outside.

pp. 5–10 · ¶ 10–15

ii.2. Whether the evidence concerning the alleged recoveries and the medical record was sufficient to sustain A2’s conviction.

p. 10 · ¶ 16–17

03Law Applied

Section 451 IPC punishes house-trespass committed with the intention of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment; Sections 441 and 442 IPC define criminal trespass and house-trespass, respectively, and entry into or remaining in the relevant building is required.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11

Section 394 IPC concerns voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting robbery, and Section 390 defines robbery, including theft accompanied by specified force or harm.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12

The court also applied the revisional-jurisdiction principles stated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, AIRONLINE 2012 SC 668: revision may be warranted where, among other things, a finding rests on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised perversely.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397 Section 401 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 451 Section 394

04Reasoning

The court held that the charges against A2 were framed under Sections 451 and 394 IPC simpliciter, without invoking common intention under Section 34 or abetment under Section 109.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

The complaint, the principal account of the occurrence available because Saroja was not examined, stated that A1 entered the house and took the jewellery, while A2 stood outside.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 13–15

The court therefore found no basis to attribute to A2 the entry required for Section 451 or the conduct it considered necessary for Section 394.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 14–15

It also declined to rely on the alleged recoveries because the witnesses associated with the arrests, confessions and recoveries had turned hostile; the medical record’s reference to “two persons” was not, by itself, sufficient to convict.

p. 10 · ¶ 16–17

The resulting convictions were erroneous and perverse, warranting revision.

p. 11 · ¶ 18

05Holding

The High Court allowed the revision, reversed the appellate judgment and the trial court’s finding and sentences, and acquitted A2 of the charges under Sections 451 and 394 IPC.

p. 11 · ¶ 19–20

It directed that A2 be set at liberty, that any fine paid be refunded, and that her bail bond be cancelled.

p. 11 · ¶ 20

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF