O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No.51 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (III), Thrissur, has unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, before the Sessions Court, Thrissur through Crl. Appeal No.434 of

2000.

2. The prosecution case is that on 21.12.1996 at

1.15 p.m. the petitioner came behind PW2, a women who was employed in the Kerala Agricultural University at, Vellanikkara, Thrissur. While she was proceeding to her house and snatched away a gold chain weighing three sovereign from her neck and ran away. Swiftly the law was set in motion and the matter was informed to the police. PW14 conducted the investigation, placed the petitioner under arrest and effected the recovery of MO.1 gold chain.

3. Hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso, it has clearly come out that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the findings on facts concurrently entered by the trial court as well as the appellate court . The only argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has remorse in the incident and he has not involved in any other offence. It is