JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat, J.

This order shall dispose off two revisions, i.e., CRR-2131-2009 titled as 'Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana' and CRR-2541-2009 titled as 'Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana', whereby, the petitioners have challenged the common impugned judgment dated 05.08.2009 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and common impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, whereby, the petitioners had been convicted for the offences under Sections 379/356 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 356 IPC alongwith default stipulation. The petitioners had also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 379 IPC alongwith default stipulation.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Rajesh Kumar son of Som Nath resident of House No. 21/15, Nanak Pura, Kachcha Camp, Panipat, wherein, he alleged that he was doing a private job. At about 09.00 p.m., on 30.01.2007, he was present in his house and his wife Rajni was coming back from her parental home, situated in Devipura Panipat to their residence at Nanakpura in a rickshaw and when she reached near railway fly over, Shiva Complex, two young boys came from the backside on a Hero Honda motorcycle. Out of them, one was wearing a helmet and the other was wearing a cap. They brought their motorcycle near the Rickshaw, in which his wife was sitting, snatched the gold chain from her neck and sped away on the motorcycle. He had come with his wife to report the matter to the police and on the basis of his statement Ex.PW2/A, the formal FIR Ex.PW3/C was registered and the investigation started.

3. During the course of investigation, sufficient evidence was found against both the petitioners/accused and they were arrested. In pursuance to the disclosure statements suffered by them, the gold chain was also recovered and after concluding the investigation, the challan was presented before the Court for holding the trial against both the petitioners. The trial Court found the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 and 356 IPC and both the petitioners/accused were charge sheeted accordingly. The petitioners pleaded that they had been falsely involved in the present case and claimed to be tried by the trial Court.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution placed reliance on five prosecution witnesses. PW1 Ms. Rajni reiterated the averments made in the FIR and clearly stated that the accused, who were present in the Court had snatched her chain. PW2 Rajesh Kumar also supported the prosecution story and stated that after 2/3 days of snatching of the chain, he and his wife were called to identify the accused and they were identified. Even, the gold chain was duly identified by them and was taken on superdari from the Court. He identified his signatures on recovery and identification memo Ex.PW2/B. PW3 ASI Jai Kishan was the Investigating Officer initially and proved the initial investigation. PW4 EHC Surender Singh proved the disclosure statements made by both the petitioners as PW4/A and PW4/B, wherein, both the petitioners had admitted that they had snatched the chain from the neck of a woman, which had been concealed by them in their house and could get the same recovered. Even, the accused got recovered the chain, which was identified by the complainant and was taken into possession by the police. PW5 ASI Kanwar Singh also proved the disclosure statements Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and also supported the statement of PW4 EHC Surender Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned judgments are based on misappreciation of evidence and the law. Learned counsel contended that the entire prosecution case was based on disclosure statements made