The appellants are six in number.On 17.09.2002 during mid night, as many as 10 persons came to the house of one Rangiyam V.N. Chidambaram and tied the watchman and the cook of the house and stole a silver idol worth about Rs.10,000/-.During the occurrence, the watchman of the house, namely, Azhagappan was injured.In this regard, the said Azhagappan lodged an information before Panaiyapatti police station on 18.09.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. Based on the same, Crime No.125 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be laid against as many as 10 persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.It was taken up for trial in S.C.No.66 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.Out of the 10 accused, only six accused were available for facing the trial and the remaining four accused had absconded.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The charges framed against the appellants as follows:-prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.M.O.1 to M.O.7 were also marked.The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, sentenced the accused as under:-Accused Nos.1 to 6 120(b)of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I. Accused Nos.1 to 5 395 of I.P.C. To undergo 5 years R.I.120(b)of I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.Accused No.6 412 of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I.Challenging the Judgment dated 31.03.2010, this Criminal appealhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 has been filed.Even though the appeal was filed through a counsel, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on the side of the accused.Since they have already served the entire terms of sentence, this appeal is dismissed as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.The identification of an accused before the trial Court alone would be the substantive evidence.In this case, P.W.1 Palani could not identify any of the accused before the trial Court.In fact the entire case of the prosecution rested on the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from one Sikkandharkani.But he turned hostile before the Court.As regards accused No.6, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the idol in question M.O.1 was seized only from the house of the sixth accused and that is why the charge under Section 412 of I.P.C. was also framed against him.But then, the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants drew my attention to the testimony of P.W.17, namely, investigation officer who had statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 that on the date when M.O.1 2¼ Kg.silver Vinayagar idol was seized, no confession was obtained from accused No.6 Ramachandra Prabhu.Looked at from any angle, I am of the view that the impugned Judgment cannot stand as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned and the same is set aside as far as they are concerned.The Criminal appeal stands allowed as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned.No costs.The Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.The Inspector of Police, Panaiyappatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.pmu Crl.A.(MD)No.127 of 2010 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code