The court considered the evidence and materials presented, ultimately finding no reason to interfere with the lower courts' findings. However, the court decided to reduce the petitioners' sentence due to their young age and lack of prior similar offenses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the above Crl.R.C. by setting aside the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in C.A.No.45/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, confirming judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed in S.C.No.214/2010 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Coimbatore.)

1. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners in S.C.No.214 of 2010, dated 05.03.2014 by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore/trial Court are as follows:-

* For offence under Section 451 of IPC, the 1st petitioner to undergo three months Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

* For offence under Section 392 of IPC, the 1st petitioner to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

* For offence under Section 392 r/w 34 of IPC, the 2nd petitioner to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

2. As against the judgment of trial Court, dated 05.03.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore/lower appellate Court in C.A.No.45 of 2014. The lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 26.07.2016 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, against which, the present Criminal Revision case.

3. The gist of the case is that on 30.06.2008, at about 12.30 p.m., when the defacto complainant/PW1 in her house, the petitioners went to her house, asked for water to drink. PW1 went inside the house for fetching water, at that time, the 1st petitioner followed her, when she questioned the same, the 1st petitioner poured chilly powder on her face, but she evaded the same, thereafter, by showing blade, the 1st petitioner attempted to inflict injury, which was also evaded by her. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner snatched her Thali/MO4 and ran out, where the 2nd petitioner was ready with the bike, keeping watch over the area and facilitating escape of 1st petitioner. PW1 raised alarm, on hearing the same, PW2 and one Krishna chased the petitioners. When the petitioners attempted to flee away from the scene, they skidded and fell down from the bike. Thereafter, they were caught hold and handed over to the respondent Police along with the snatched Thali/MO4, chilly powder and motor bike. PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint/Ex.P1, registered FIR/Ex.P4 and handed over the same to PW6. PW6, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence, drawn Observation Mahazar/Ex.P3, Rough Sketch/Ex.P5, recorded the statement of the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, seized the material objects through Form-95 and arrested the petitioners and produced them before the concerned Magistrate for remand, on conclusion of investigation, filed the charge before the trial Court.

4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 and five material objects were marked as MO1 to MO4. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioners as stated above and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, vide judgment, dated 26.07.2016 in C.A.No.45 of 2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. Prior to the occurrence, an attempt was made for snatching Thali/MO4 of PW1 by two unknown persons wearing helmets and the complaint was kept pending. Since unable to find out the real accused in that case, the respondent Police detained the petitioners during a vehicle check when they were proceeding in a motor bike to visit the 1st petitioner'