The court affirmed the conviction for robbery under IPC despite identification delays, affirming procedural adequacy.

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), JMFC, Moodbidri (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.716/2004 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequent sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. The petitioners have also challenged the judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.296/2008 by which, the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioners were the accused.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 16.02.2004, when PW.1 was walking on the road, the accused were riding a scooter bearing registration No.KA-19-S-105 and enquired PW-1 about the road that lead to Kinnigoli. Thereafter, they proceeded on the road but returned back and with a common intention to commit a crime, started conversation with PW-1 and they forcibly restrained her and accused No.2 on the direction of accused No.1, snatched her chain weighing 11.700 gms and sped away. CW.2 and CW.3 chased in an auto- rickshaw driven by CW.5 but the accused could not be traced. Later, the accused was apprehended at the instance of CW.2 and CW.3. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of PW-2, the owner of the scooter used for the crime and PW-3 and PW-4 were the two persons, who chased the accused in an auto-rickshaw. While PW-5 was a person, who was residing nearby, who alerted the police about the crime; PW-6 was the owner of the auto-rickshaw, which was hired by PW-3 and PW-4, to chase the accused. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and he also recorded the statement of PW-3 and PW-4, who were the panch witnesses as well as the witnesses to the seizure mahazar and recorded the statement of PW-10, who conducted the test identification parade. PW-11 was the Investigating Officer and PW-12 to PW-14 were the Investigating Officers who conducted the investigation. Thereafter, PW.14 submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to a charge for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and the two material objects were marked as M.O.Nos.1 and 2. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . who denied the incriminating evidence against them. However, they marked a portion of statement of PW.4 as Ex.D1.

4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the vehicle in question and the gold chain snatched from the PW-1 were recovered in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. PW-3 and PW-4 supported the prosecution. They also deposed before the Court that they chased the accused and thereafter they were the one who showed the accused to the police and assisted the police in arresting the accused and recovering the gold chain from the accused. PW-2 was the owner of the scooter which was used by the accused for crime and she deposed that the scooter was taken by accus