Court affirmed convictions for robbery, emphasizing sufficient evidential support despite appellant's claims of unidentifiable evidence.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, and the Additional Sessions Judge - II, Kollam, in C.C.No.696 of 2004 and in Crl.A.No.632 of 2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of the offence under Section 394 IPC read with Section

34 IPC , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2003, at about

5.00 pm, the petitioners committed robbery by snatching the gold chain worn by PW1 after hitting upon her neck, while she was walking through the road situated near Thazhava South Muri. It was alleged that the 1^st accused drove a Motor Bike with the 2^nd accused as pillion rider, and all of a sudden, attacked PW1 and snatched the gold chain which she had been wearing.

3. The case came to light with the confession made by the accused to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannar, while being questioned in Crime No.57 of 2004 of the Mannar Police Station. Accordingly, Crime No.69 of 2004 was registered in connection with the aforesaid incident and later on, the case was transferred to the Karunagappally Police, since the place of occurrence came within the jurisdiction of the Karunagappally Police Station. However, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the 1^st accused, the gold chain, which is the stolen item involved in this case, was recovered in the form of ingot from PW4. Later on, PW1 and another witness, who was along with PW1 at the time of occurrence, had identified the accused.

4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PWs 1 to 6, and brought on record eight documents as Exts.P1 to P8. A contradiction in the prior statement of PW2, was marked as Ext.D1 from the part of the accused. The gold chain, which was recovered in the form of ingot, was identified as MO1. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 394 IPC , and convicted them thereunder. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years, and fine Rs.1,000/- each with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months.

5. Though the petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforesaid verdict of the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Kollam, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the evidence tendered by PW1 about the identification of the gold chain itself is unbelievable since the Investigating Officer is said to have recovered it in the form of an ingot, and it was practically impossible for PW1 to identify her gold chain while it was in the shape of an ingot. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that PW1 had never preferred any complaint with regard to the aforesaid robbery perpetrated upon her. Both these challenges are considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and dispelled. It is to be noted that PW1, as well as PW2, who was present at the time of occurrence of this crime, had identified the petitioners as the offenders, who snatched the gold chain of PW1. That apart, it is seen from the records that PW4, the person to whom the accused sold the gold chain, testified before the court in unequivocal terms about the act of the petitioners selling the stolen i