The revision powers of the High Court are limited to instances of perverse findings, emphasizing the importance of concurrent judgments.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.257/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, (for short, the trial court), who faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

02.02.2008 at about 2:00 p.m., while PW2 was walking along the Valliyad-Mangalad public road, both the accused arrived on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-18-C-9945, which was being ridden by accused No.1, then accused No.2 snatched a gold chain weighing 4½ sovereigns from PW2 and thereby committed the alleged offence.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. MO1 gold chain was identified. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D9 were marked. After trial, the trial court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were convicted for the said offence. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. The appeal preferred by the petitioners as Crl.Appeal No.792/2011 before the Additional Sessions Court, Vatakara (for short, the appellate court), challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was further submitted that the recovery of gold chain marked as MO1 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been proved. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Section 379 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW2 is the defacto complainant. She gave Ext.P2 FI statement. She deposed that on 02.02.2008, at 02:00 p.m, while she was returning to her house from the market, the accused persons came in a bike and snatched away MO1 gold chain from her neck. She specifically deposed that the accused No.1 was riding the bike and the accused No.2, who was sitting on the bike as a pillion rider, snatched away the gold chain. She identified both the accused at the court. She has also identified MO1 gold chain as her gold chain snatched away by the accused from her neck. Even though PW2 has been cross- examined at length, nothing tangible could be extracted from her testimony to discredit her version. The evidence of PW2 is further corroborated by the recovery of the gold chain marked as MO1, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

8. To prove the recovery of MO1 gold chain, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs3, 4, 5 and 7. PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police deposed that he arrested both the accused in connection with another crime and while in police custody, the accused No.1 gave Ext.P3(a) confession statement to him to the eff