JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned two appeals which have arisen out of common judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 01.06.2024 passed in Sessions case No.35 of 2021 titled as State v. Sudhir and another arising out of FIR No.567 dated 14.07.2019 registered under Section 379-A of IPC at Police Station City, Panipat whereby the appellants had been held guilty and convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat for commission of offence punishable under Section 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Fine had not been paid.

2. The prosecution in this case had been launched on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Gaurav on 14.07.2019 alleging that on the night of 09.07.2019 at about 11 PM, he was going from Bus Stand Panipat towards his Village Khozkipur, when two youths riding on a bike came to him and after snatching his mobile phone make VIVO-Y95 containing two sim cards, escaped with the same. A case under Section 379-A of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. An untraceable report was filed. The appellants were arrested on 27.07.2020 on the basis of a secret information. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting their involvement in the crime and got recovered cash amount of Rs. 1600/-and Rs. 1400/- respectively. The motorcycle used at the time of occurrence by them had also been got recovered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

3. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused free of cost. On finding a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC, the appellants had been charge-sheeted accordingly, They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined five witnessses namely, ASI Rajesh, PW-1 who had joined the investigation, PW-2 Gaurav, PW-3 SI Rajender Kumar who was a formal witness, PW-4 SI Satbir Singh, a formal witness and PW-5 ASI Rajbir Singh, Investigating Officer who deposed about conducting investigation proceedings. Documentary evidence had also been produced.

5. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed themselves to be innocent. No defence evidence had been adduced.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and on appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution on record, the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above.

7. Feeling aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the appellants-accused.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for both the appellants that the impugned judgment of convictin and order on quantum of sentence are liable to be set aside as the findings given by learned trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court ignored the fact that there was delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police which had not been explained at all by the complainant. The appellants were not named in the FIR. The recovery of money as effected from the appellants was not at all sufficient to connect them with the alleged incident of snatching. The phone allegedly snatched from the complainant had not been recovered from them rather the same was not recovered at all. There was no eye-witness to the occurrence. The appellants had not been identified by the complainant during investigation as no test identification parade was conducted. Their identification for first time in the Court by the complainant cannot be stated to be an identification in the eyes of law. However, all these facts had not been taken int