Madras High Court
Chinnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 July, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON :30-04-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CRL RC(MD).No.713 of 2019
1.Chinnan
2.Chandran ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State through
the Inspector of Police,
Bodi Taluk Police Station,
Theni District,
Cr.No.339/2009. ... Respondent
PRAYER :- This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records judgment in
C.C.No.06/2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Theni and
confirmed the Judgment C.A.No.69/2017 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Theni dated 18.01.2019 set
aside the same and acquittal the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 394 of Indian Penal Cose.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order
passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Theni, in
C.A.No.69 of 2017 dated 18.01.2019, confirming the order passed by
Assistant Sessions Judge, Theni in S.C.No.6 of 2011 dated 10.04.2017.
2.Brief facts:
2.1. It is the case of prosecution that on 11.10.2009 around 12.00
PM, defacto complainant and his wife, who were newly married after
visiting P.W.2’s paternal home, visited their relative’s home for breakfast.
While they were returning home, they were waylaid by A1 and
A2/petitioners herein, A1 threatened P.W.2 with a knife while A2
snatched the chains, viz., thali chain and godhumai cutting chain from
P.W.2.
2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
2.2 P.W.1, one of the defacto complainants, tried to resist and in
that process, was injured by petitioners herein. Ornaments robbed from
P.W.2 is stated to weigh about 10 sovereigns of gold. On the basis of
their complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.339 of 2009
for offence under Section 397 of IPC. Petitioners were arrested on
07.05.2010, i.e., almost 6 months after the date of occurrence by P.W.9,
who apprehended petitioners in relation to Crime No.623 of 2010. It may
be relevant to note that P.W.9 is an officer of Theni Police Station.
During the course of enquiry/interrogation by P.W.9, petitioners herein
had disclosed commission of the alleged offence and confessed that after
having robbed P.W.1 and P.W.2 of the chains, had pledged the same with
one Manikandan. Pursuant to the above confession statement, P.W.9 had
taken the petitioners herein to Manikandan and recovered ornaments,
viz., thali chain and godhumai cutting chain. Thereafter, petitioners were
identified as one who had committed the act of robbery and also the
jewellery was also identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. It may also be relevant
to note that there are no rival claimants with regard to jewellery/chains,
which have been recovered. Thereafter, final report was filed by the
3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
respondent Police and trial commenced before the Assistant Sessions
Court, Theni in S.C.No.6 of 2011.
3. Trial Court convicted the petitioners herein for offence under
Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each , in default, to undergo
two months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred
appeal in C.A.No.69 of 2017 before Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track), Theni, who confirmed the order of the Trial Court. It
is against the above order, petitioners had preferred the present revision
case.
4. Finding of the trial court:
a) The victims / Complainants had identified petitioners in court.
A1 was not in court, thus identification of A1 was not possible.
b) Victims / Complainants were intimidated by petitioners, who
attempted to murder the victims / complainant. The complainants while
4/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
defending was injured and accident report marked as Exhibit P11 would
also show that the complainant were injured.
c) Complainants visited the hospital around 4:30 p.m. for treatment
stating that two known persons had attacked him, while defending was
injured. Doctor had opined that the injuries may not have been caused
while defending and it was possible that it was self-inflicted.
d) That there was a confession by the petitioners of handing over
the stolen jewellery from victim / complainant to one Manigandan.
Pursuant thereto, petitioners were taken to Manigandan and Manigandan
was in fact identified by petitioners and stolen articles were recovered
from the said Manigandan.
e) Allegation of motives behind the complaint was found to be
baseless inasmuch as there was neither previous enmity between the
petitioner and the complainant nor between the petitioner and the
investigating officer.
f) Though Balu and Arivandandham had turned hostile that by
itself would not detract the evidentiary value of other evidence including
5/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
statement of injured witness, recovery of material objects which would
show that the petitioners in fact had committed the alleged offense.
5. On the strength on the strength of the above findings, the trial
court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the
offense under section under Section 394 of IPC.
6. Case of petitioners:
Order of the Trial Court has been challenged primarily on three
grounds, viz.,
a) That gold chains, which are alleged to have been robbed by
petitioners have been recovered from Manikandan. He was not examined.
Failure to examine Manikandan from whom the jewellery/chains were
recovered would prove fatal.
b) That injuries have been indicated by the Doctor, who examined
P.W.2, as having been self inflicted.
c) That ingredients of robbery have not been made out. Though the
knife, which was allegedly used in commission of offence was recovered,
there were no blood stains.
6/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
7. To the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar would submit that this court may have to keep the
following aspects in mind, namely,
a) Petitioners herein were apprehended by P.W.9, a police officer,
who was attached to Theni Police Station and has nothing to do
whatsoever with the alleged offence. On interrogation, there was a
confession, which lead to recovery of material objects and therefore, that
becomes relevant in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act.
b) That possibility of self-infliction is only by way of suggestion
and it is not conclusive statement / opinion by / of the Doctor.
c) That petitioners are habitual offenders as they are alleged to
have been involved in more than one case and even before the doctor,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 soon after they were injured, had indicated that they can
identify the two offenders and as a matter of fact, also identified
petitioners who committed the act of robbery.
d) If this Court keeps in view the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who are the victims and who have also identified the petitioners and also
the material objects involved in the offence and also the fact that
7/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
pursuant to the confession statement, jewellery, which P.W.1 and P.W2
were robbed off, has been recovered, would conclusively show
commission of offence by petitioners herein.
7.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that
this is the case which may not warrant any leniency inasmuch as
petitioners are habitual offenders.
8. Heard both sides. Perused materials on record.
9. The order of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference
for the following reasons:
A) Recovery of stolen articles – pursuant to confession – Relevant:
9.1 That Section of 27 of the Evidence Act would get attracted to
the statement made by petitioners insofar as it leads to discovery of facts.
To appreciate the above contention, it may be relevant rather necessary to
refer to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:
8/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
“27. How much of information received from
accused may be proved.––Provided that, when any fact
is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession or
not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved.”9.2 From a reading of Section 27, it appears that the following
conditions must be fulfilled for Section 27 to get attracted / invoked:
(i) There must be discovery of fact albeit relevant fact, in
consequence of the information received from a person accused of an
offence.
(ii) The discovery of such fact must be deposed to.
(iii) At the time of the receipt of the information the accused must
be in police custody.
(iv) That only so much of the information as relates distinctly to
the fact, thereby discovered is admissible.
9/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
B) Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
a) While this Court is conscious that confessions in police custody
may not be admissible, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is founded
on a principle that even though the evidence relating to the confessional
or other statements made by a person while he is in the custody of a
police officer, is tainted and therefore inadmissible, if the truth of the
information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be
presumed to be untainted and is therefore declared provable in so far as it
distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.
(b) The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one
which is the information leading to discovery.
(c) It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery
of a fact envisaged in the section.
(d) The “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the
place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused
as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
10/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
C) Section 27 represents loosely what is known as the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent fact. The rationale for admissibility of that
part of statement which is subsequently by discovery of a material fact is
that it must be reliable. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the
following judgments:
a) Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1054 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 158 at page 596
“40. Thus, the part of the disclosure statement,
namely, that the appellant was ready to show the place
where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased is
clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of the
clothes of the deceased from that very place. The
contention that even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that the clothes of the deceased were recovered
from the house of the sister of the appellant pursuant to
the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant,
the prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes so
recovered belonged to the deceased and therefore, the
recovery of the clothes should not be treated as an
incriminating circumstance, is devoid of merits.”
b) Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 :(2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 985 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 755 at page 403
“24. The accused had given a statement (Ext.
PW-7/A) to the SDM in the presence of PW 11, Inspector
Nand Kumar which led to discovery of the electric wire by
11/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
which the crime was committed. We are of the opinion that
this disclosure was admissible as evidence under Section
27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 vide Aftab Ahmad
Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal [(2010) 2 SCC 583 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1054] (para 40) and Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010)
2 SCC (Cri) 1385] (SCC paras 234-38). In his evidence
the Police Inspector Nand Kumar stated that at the
pointing out of the accused the electric wire with which
the accused is alleged to have strangulated his daughter
was recovered from under a bed in a room.”
c). Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
50 at page 771“31. It will also be relevant to refer to the
following observations of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. David Rozario [State of
Karnataka v. David Rozario, (2002) 7 SCC 728 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 1852] : (SCC p. 733, para 5)
“5. … This information which is otherwise admissible
becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the
information did not come from a person in the custody of
a police officer or did come from a person not in the
custody of a police officer. The statement which is
admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the
information leading to discovery. Thus, what is
admissible being the information, the same has to be
proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police
officer. In other words, the exact information given by
the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the12/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for
the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that
information given should be recorded and proved and if
not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced
through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section
27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made
on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in
nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a
reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery
of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the
section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri
Kotayya v. King-Emperor [Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-
Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 : (1946-47) 74 IA
65 : AIR 1947 PC 67] is the most-quoted authority for
supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which
the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused
as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly
to that effect. (See State of Maharashtra v. Damu [State
of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1088] .)”(emphasis supplied)
The above view was also reiterated in Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of
Assam, (2013) 7 SCC 417.
13/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
10. Petitioners had in their confession inter alia stated jewellery
which were stolen by petitioners, after waylaying defacto complainant,
was handed over to one Manigandan. Petitioners were taken to
Manigandan. Petitioners identified Manigandan. Stolen jewellery from
defacto complaint was recovered from Manigandan.
11. Applying the above law discussed supra with regard to Section
27 of the Evidence Act, to the facts on hand, though discovery of
jewellery / object may not constitute discovery of facts for the purposes
of Section 27, however, the statement / confession insofar as it reveals
the following is relevant and admissible viz.,
a) knowledge of petitioners as to the place where the stolen
jewellery was kept.
b) jewellery after being stolen / robbed was handed over to
Manigandan.
12. Injured witness -Value – Credibility:-
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are victims. P.W.1 was injured during the
14/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
commission of offence of robbery by petitioners. It is trite that evidenceof the injured witness has greater evidentiary value and greater credence
attached to it and ought not to be discarded lightly because normally he
would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual
assailant. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the following
judgments:
i). Vijay Shankar Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 670 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 535 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 115 at page 672:
“9. The trial court was not justified in holding that
because PW 11 was an injured witness he may have reason
to falsely implicate the accused. However, as rightly
observed by the trial court and the High Court, the evidence
of PWs 12 and 13 does not suffer from any deficiency. PWs
11, 12 and 13 were cross-examined at length but nothing
substantial could be elicited to destroy the credibility of
their version. As a matter of fact, the evidence of injured
person who is examined as a witness lends more credence,
because normally he would not falsely implicate a person
thereby protecting the actual assailant.”
ii) State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
390 : 2003 SCC OnLine SC 847 at page 419:
“9. The evidence of injured witnesses has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because15/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
there was no mention of a knife in the first information
report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence
tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor
discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise
acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the
High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the
injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential…..”1
iii). Sadakat Kotwar v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 17 SCC 331 : 2021
SCC OnLine SC 1046 at page 332:
3. As held by this Court in State of
M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10
SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] , SCC para 9, the
evidence of an injured eyewitness has great evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly. There are
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding
the appellants — original accused guilty which do not
require any interference by this Court in exercise of
powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”Thus, the Courts below are right in attaching credibility to
evidence of injured witness.
1
The above decision was applied in Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191; relied
upon in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 18 SCC 321; affirmed in Ashok Kumar Singh
Chandel v. State of U.P., (2022) 20 SCC 114; and followed in Sadakat Kotwar v. State of
Jharkhand, (2024) 17 SCC 331.
16/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
13. Defective Investigation not fatal:
(i) The submission by petitioners that the investigation was
defective inasmuch as Manigandan was not examined and that there were
no blood stains in the recovered knife / weapon, as indicative of lapses in
investigation but not taken into account by trial Court. Assuming that
there has been lapses or deficiency in investigation, that by itself would
not prove fatal as long as evidence on record is adequate to support the
case of prosecution. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the
following decisions:-
i). Ram Bali v. State of U.P., (2004) 10 SCC 598 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 2045 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 504 at page 604:
“12. The investigation was also stated to be defective
since the gun was not sent for forensic test. In the case of a
defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in
evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect;
to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the
investigating officer if the investigation is designedly
defective. (See Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC
518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] )17/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
14…….When the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses
corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the
prosecution version, failure or omission or negligence on
the part of the IO cannot affect the credibility of the
prosecution version.
34. Thus, what can be deduced from the above is that
by itself non-recovery of the weapon of crime would not be
fatal to the prosecution case When there is such non-
recovery, there would be no question of linking the empty
cartridges and pellets seized during investigation with the
weapon allegedly used in the crime.”
(emphasis supplied)
ii). Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
104]
“It was held that if the lapse or omission is
committed by the investigating agency or because of
negligence there had been defective investigation the
prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors
such omissions carefully to find out whether the said
evidence is reliable or not and to what extent, such lapse
affected the object of finding out the truth. The
contaminated conduct of officials alone should not stand
in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts in
finding out the truth, if the materials on record are
otherwise credible and truthful; otherwise the designed
mischief at the instance of biased or interested
investigator would be perpetuated and justice would be
denied to the complainant party, and in the process to the
community at large.”
(emphasis supplied)
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
14. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the judgment passed in C.C.No.06/2011 on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Court, Theni and confirmed in C.A.No.69/2017 on the file of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Theni dated
18.01.2019.
15. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Petition
stands dismissed.
23.07.2026
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Spp/Lm/anu
To:
1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Theni
2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Theni
3.Inspector of Police,
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
Bodi Taluk Police Station,
Theni District,
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
20/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.(MD)No.713 of 2019
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
Lm/Spp/anu
Crl.RC(MD) No.713 of 2019
23.07.2026
21/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
