ORDER :

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.' for short).

2. The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.72/07 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal and he impugns judgment in the above case as well as judgment in Crl.A.No.254/2012 dated 03.03.2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. I shall refer the parties in this revision petition as 'prosecution' and 'accused' for convenience.

5. The prosecution case is that at about 10.15 am on 17.09.2006, the second accused, who was a pillion rider on a Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-01-T-5984 ridden by the first accused, while travelling from Kilimanoor – Karette, snatched away a gold chain worn by the first witness, who was waiting for bus at Erattachira. The specific case is that the second accused got out from the bike and snatched away the gold chain, weighing 55.825 gm having value of Rs.55,000/-. On this occurrence, crime alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC was registered.

6. After investigation, final report was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. The trial court took cognizance for the said offence and secured the presence of both accused for trial and finally tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW7 examined, Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1 and MO2 marked on the side of the prosecution.

7. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to him, to adduce defence evidence. But no evidence was adduced.

8. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month also was imposed.

9. The first accused challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court by filing Crl.A.260/2012 and the second accused challenged the same as per Crl.A.254/2012. On re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the first accused and confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed against the second accused.

10. While challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the second accused/revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that in this case, the second accused was not identified properly as the person who snatched away the gold chain worn by PW1 and PW1 has no familiarity with the second accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner that, in this case, the identity of the second accused is not proved and PW1 identified the second accused at the dock and the said identification without support of Test Identification Parade by way of corroboration could not be believed, to hold that the second accused was the person who snatched away the gold chain. In this connection, the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Kannan v. State of Kerala, 1979 KHC 393.

11. The second point argued by the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner is that recovery effected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by itself is not sufficient to find the guilt of the accused unless there is corroborative evidence to support the same. In this connection, the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in Jafarudheen v. Stated of Kerala, 2022 KHC 6449 and in the said decision in paragraphs 30 and 31 held as follows:

“30. S27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to S 24 to 26. Admissibility under S.27 is relatable to the information pertaining t