The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.58 of 2010 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam. The courts below convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner under Sections 454, 380 and 461 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.6.2009 in between 9 am ad 1.30 p.m., the revision petitioner and the other accused in furtherance of their common intention committed lurking house trespass into the house of PW1 and committed theft of MO1 to MO3 gold ornaments, Rs.2,000/- in cash and a mobile phone from the almirah in the said house.

3. Heard.

4. PW1 is the owner of MO1 to MO3 gold ornaments, who identified the said ornaments. MO1 to MO3 were recovered by PW2 pursuant to Ext.P2(a) and P3(a) disclosure statements given by the revision petitioner. PW3 to PW5 and PW7 also supported the evidence regarding the recovery of MO1 to MO3. Thus the evidence on record would clearly prove the offence alleged against the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Azeez v. State of Kerala [2013(1) KHC 362 (SC)] and argued that when there is no evidence to connect