The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must present conclusive material to establish the guilt of the accused, and the evidence must be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.

Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 350 of 1988. He was tried along with another accused for offences punishable under Ss. 457 and 379 read with S. 34, I.P.C. on an allegation that he along with another broke open the door of a kitchen in the house belonging to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 28 gms. by snatching away the same from the neck of P.W. 2 at about 1.15 a.m. on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988.

2. On the above allegations the trial Court while acquitting the other accused convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each for the offences under Ss. 457 and 379, IPC with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. On appeal the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner and hence this revision.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988 the petitioner along with the other acquitted accused broke open the door of a kitchen in the house belonging to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and snatched away a gold chain weighing 28 gms. from the neck of P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1. On 1-9-1988 P.W. 1 went to the Palai Police Station and laid a complaint Ext. P1 and the same was registered by P.W. 5, the Head Constable as Crime No. 342/1988 under Ss. 457 and 379 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Investigation was taken up by P.Ws. 9 and 10 and during the course of investigation the petitioner along with the other acquitted accused was arrested on 11-10-1988. When questioned the petitioner gave a statement under Ext. P4(a) and took the police party to the shop of P.W. 4 who produced M.O. 1 the gold ingot which was recovered under Ext. P4 attested by P.W. 4. According to the prosecution P.Ws. 1 and 2 identified the petitioner as well as the other accused in the police station on 12-10-1988.

4. When questioned with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him the petitioner denied his complicity and stated that on the date of occurrence he was working as a porter in a bus bearing No. KLO 7401 at Kondothy. The learned Magistrate on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner which on appeal was confirmed as stated earlier.

5. Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the conviction imposed upon the petitioner has to be set aside as there is no conclusive material to establish his guilt. The occurrence, according to the prosecution took place on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988. It is the case of the prosecution that after the chain was snatched P.Ws. 1 and 2 got up, switched on the light and saw the accused running away from the scene which only means that they could have seen the intruder only from behind. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the first information report and the petitioner was identified at the police station only on 12-10-1988. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why no identification parade was conducted in respect of the petitioner. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they informed the police at the police station and identified the petitioner as the accused who snatched the gold chain and ran away from the scene is distinctly hit by S. 162, Crl.P.C. and no weight can be attached to the identification alleged to have been made by the witnesses at the police station. It is to be noted at this stage that the other accused in the case was acquitted by the trial Court on the same evidence adduced by the prosecution.

6. The other piece of evidence which the prosecution relies to prove its case against the petitioner is the alleged recovery. According to the prosecution the petitioner was arrested on 11-10-1988 and he came out with the statement Ext. P4(a) as per which he has stated that if he is taken to the place he will show the man to whom he had given the necklace. This statement in my view will not be admi