The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence of witnesses and the recovery of the stolen gold chain, and rejected the plea to reduce the sentence and release the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case before the Trial Court is that on 19/6/2009 at about 9.15 p.m., this petitioner along with other accused person came and purchased the Pan packets from the shop of the complainant and asked for water, accordingly, the complainant gave the water to them. When PW1 has to return the remaining amount of Rs.3.00 to the petitioner, this petitioner snatched the gold chain worth of Rs.40,000.00 weighing 30 grams from her neck. Hence, the case was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 392 of IPC. The police after registration of the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The petitioner and other accused were secured and both of them have denied the charges leveled against them and the prosecution examined the witnesses at PW1 to PW10 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7 and also marked MO1 - gold chain which was the subject matter of the robbery. The petitioner not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the petitioner and other accused person for the offence punishable under Sec. 392 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment of another ten days. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner along with other accused person in Crl.A.Nos.161/2011 and 163/2011 respectively. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the orders of conviction and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no corroborative evidence to convict the petitioner and the recovery of the ornament also not proved by the respondent-police. Ex.P3 is the recovery mahazar and PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses to the recovery mahazar and both of them turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Inspite of the same, both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the petitioner and there is no test identification parade and when the witness-PW1 not having the acquaintance with the petitioner, ought to have conducted the test identification parade and the same is not conducted and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the complainant is the victim who lost the gold chain and the counsel would submit that the specific allegation against this petitioner is that he only snatched the gold chain from the neck of PW1. The counsel also would submit that PW8 and PW11 have spoken with regard to the committing the offence of robbery and recovery of MO1 and hence, both the Courts have rightly considered the evidence available on record. The counsel also would submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The counsel would submit that PW9 identified the petitioner saying that this petitioner along with other accused person were used to come and use the coin booth belonged to PW9 and she has given evidence with regard that both the accused person were near the shop of PW1 prior to the alleged incident and same is also considered by the Trial Court and hence, it does not requires interference of this Court.

5. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

1. Whether the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 392 of IPC and confirming the said order and whether it requires interference by this Court exercising