An injured witness's testimony holds significant evidentiary value, and the absence of a test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused, as in-court identification serves as primary substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 08.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, arising out of the judgment dated 18.09.2010 in C.C. No. 499 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, whereby the revision petitioner herein, along with the second accused in the said case, was found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 13.07.2009 at about 6:15 p.m., the first and second accused, in furtherance of their common intention, arrived on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-13/T- 4496, approached PW1 while she was walking along a public road, and, after pushing her down, snatched away her gold chain weighing 4.5 sovereigns. According to the prosecution, apart from the loss of the gold chain, PW1 also sustained injuries in the course of the incident. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the trial, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. MO1 was identified and marked.

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The said judgment is impugned by way of this revision petition.

6. Heard Smt. Namitha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel further urged that, apart from the testimony of PW1, the only other evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that of her minor daughter, who is stated to have been present with PW1 at the time of the incident. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence, it would be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of PW1 and her daughter, particularly since they are interested witnesses. The learned counsel also raised grievances regarding the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court. On these premises, it was contended that the judgment passed by the appellate court, which is under challenge in this revision petition, is liable to be set aside and the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial court as well as the appellate court have recorded their findings after properly appreciating the evidence adduced in the case, and therefore no interference is warranted in the present revision petition. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, both the trial court and the appellate court have placed reliance mainly on the evidence of PW1 on the ground that she is an injured witness. It was submitted that the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value and is entitled to due weightage, part