1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2014 made in S.C. No.103 of 2011 on the file of the Mahila Sessions (Fast Track Court), Erode.

2. The schema of the prosecution case is as under:

2.1 On 06.02.2010, around 10 p.m., when Lakshmi (P.W.1), a housewife, went to the backyard of her house to discard the plantain leaves used for partaking food, the accused pulled her gold chain from behind and she resisted it. At that time, the accused brandished a knife and threatened her due to which, she let go off the chain, but, started shouting Thief, thief. The accused took her chain and sped away. On hearing her call for help, her husband and sons came there, by which time, the accused had scaled the wall and run away.

2.2 On the complaint (Ex.P.1) lodged by Lakshmi (P.W.1), Ganesan (P.W.8), Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.68 of 2010 on 07.02.2010 at 00.15 hours and prepared the FIR (Ex.P.7) under Section 392 IPC against unknown accused.

2.3 In the complaint, Lakshmi (P.W.1), has stated the age of the accused to be between 30 and 40 and that he was wearing half trousers and that she could recognise him, if she sees him.

2.4 Ganesan (P.W.8), Inspector of Police took up investigation of the case and since Lakshmi (P.W.1) suffered injuries in her neck in the incident, she was sent to the hospital. Ganesan (P.W.8) prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.8) in the presence of Shanmugasundaram (P.W.4) and Kandasamy (not examined). He also examined some witnesses and was proceeding with the investigation.

2.5 Lakshmi (P.W.1) was treated by Dr. Kanakachala Kumar (P.W.7), who, in his evidence and in the accident register (Ex.P.6), has noted three contusions in the neck region and she was treated as out-patient. On 31.10.2010, the police arrested Manikandan (A1) along with the other accused and recovered a knife from his possession under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.4) in the presence of witnesses Loganathan (P.W.5) and Thangavel (not examined). Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Manikandan (A1), the police recovered a gold chain from Murugavel (P.W.6), a pawn broker, with whom Manikandan (A1) is said to have pledged it.

2.6 During the course of investigation, it came to light that apart from Manikandan (A1), Soundarrajan (A2), Marimuthu (A3) and Sakthi @ Sekar (A4) were also involved in the offence and therefore, the police filed an alteration report (Ex.P.11) altering the case from one under Section 392 IPC to one under Sections 447, 392 read with 397 read with 34 IPC.

2.7 Ganesan (P.W.8) examined further witnesses including the doctor who treated Lakshmi (P.W.1) and completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C. No.112 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode for offences under Sections 447 read with 34, 392 read with 397 and 506 (ii) read with 34 IPC against Manikandan (A1), Soundarrajan (A2), Marimuthu (A3) and Sakthi @ Sekar (A4).

2.8 On the appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C. No.103 of 2011 and was tried by the Mahila Judge (Fast Track Court) Erode. During trial, Soundarrajan (A2) and Sakthi @ Sekar (A4) had absconded and therefore, the case against them was split up and trial proceeded against Manikandan (A1) and Marimuthu (A3).

2.9 To prove the case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, marked 11 exhibits and 2 material objects. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same. No witness was examined nor any document was marked on behalf of the accused.

2.10 After considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel on either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 31.07.2014 in S.C. No.103 of 2011, acquitted Marimuthu (A3) and convicted Manikandan (A1) for the of