The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of critical evidence and inconsistencies favor acquittal.

ORDER :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

By this judgment, Crl.R.P.No.81/2018 filed by the 1^st accused and Crl.R.P.No.80/2018 filed by the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.455/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Manjeri from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for the offence under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) are being jointly disposed of.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.8.2009 at around 3 pm. accused 1 and 2 snatched the gold chain weighing 7.2 grams worn by the defacto complainant’s child while the child was standing in the sit out of the house at Cherumannu and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P8. When the accused were examined as envisaged under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C, they denied all incriminating circumstances brought against them in the prosecution evidence and maintained that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

5. After analysing the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Challenging the conviction and sentence, 1^st accused preferred Crl.A. No.407/2014 and 2^nd accused preferred Crl.A No.408/2014 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. Both the appeals were dismissed by the judgments impugned in these two revision petitions.

6. It was contended by the accused that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and failed to take note of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution case. Further, it was contended that the recovery allegedly made pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of the accused is inadmissible and unreliable; that the 1^st accused has not given any such disclosure statement and no recovery was effected pursuant to any disclosure statement allegedly made by the 1^st accused. It was contended that the non-examination of the owner or any employees of the finance institution from where the recovery was allegedly effected, is fatal to the prosecution in proving the alleged recovery. Further, it was contended that the non- examination of the investigating officer has caused prejudice to the accused and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside by allowing these revision petitions.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are no material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 to PW4; that the prosecution has established the guilt of both the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

8. As stated above, the prosecution case is that on 16.8.2009 at 3 pm, while the defacto complainant’s daughter, aged 2½ years was standing in the sit out of his house at Cherumannu, accused 1 and 2 came on a motorcycle cycle and the 1st accused snatched the gold chain weighing 7.2 grams worn by the said child and thereafter the accused sped away on the motorcycle.

9. It is the prosecution case that on 26.8.2009 at 3 am, while PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri,