In-court identification is substantive evidence, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade is not necessarily fatal to a prosecution case if the victim's testimony is otherwise credible. Additionally, possession of stolen property soon after a theft raises a presumption of guilt under the Evidence Act.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 06.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 355/2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Alappuzha, arising out of the judgment dated 08.07.2011 in C.C. No. 696/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, 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 379 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 27.06.2006 at about 10:45 a.m., while PW1, the de facto complainant, and PW2 were walking along the side of a public road, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, came on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KRA-8320, ridden by the 2nd accused with the 1st accused as the pillion rider, and the 1st accused snatched the gold chain weighing 1½ sovereigns worn by PW1, thereby committed theft of the said chain. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 379 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 eleven witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and marked Exts. P1 to P8. MO1 and MO2 were identified and marked.

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. 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. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri.Syleshwaren Nair R., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1 s t accused, and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and consequently arrived at a finding of guilt against the accused without a proper evaluation of the facts and evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the identification of the accused by PW1, the de facto complainant, who allegedly lost her gold chain in the incident, is not reliable and cannot be safely acted upon, particularly in the absence of corroboration through a Test Identification Parade. The learned counsel also pointed out certain discrepancies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. It was further argued that the recovery evidence adduced by the prosecution constitutes only a weak piece of evidence and ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court for recording the conviction. 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 Publ