Eyewitness and victim testimony suffices to prove robbery despite recovery without independent witnesses.

O R D E R

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C No.655/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, are the revision petitioners herein. They were convicted by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Section 394 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years, and fine Rs.1,000/- each. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam, who considered the above appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

2. Since there was no representation from the part of the revision petitioners on repeated posting dates, notices were issued to them intimating the adjournment of the case and informing them that the case will be decided in their absence, if there is no representation on the adjourned posting date. The notice issued to the first petitioner was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’. Notice to the second petitioner was returned with the endorsement ‘addressee deceased’. In the above circumstances, Adv.Mrs.Devika.K.R was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to represent the revision petitioners. 3. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The prosecution case is that on 24.11.2003 at about 5:45 p.m, the petitioners, along with the third accused, came in a motorbike and inflicted voluntary hurt by hitting on the neck of PW1, who was walking through the road at Changankulangara in Ochira Panchayat, and thereafter snatched the gold chain worn by her. The first petitioner was said to be the person who had been driving the motorbike, and the second petitioner is the person who physically assaulted and robbed the gold chain belonging to PW1.

5. Though PW1 and her husband (PW2) had complained before the Ochira Police, no case was registered at that time. However, after about 3½ months, the first petitioner is said to have confessed the commission of the crime to PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannar, while the petitioners were being interrogated in connection with Crime No.57/2004 of Mannar Police Station. On the basis of the information so received, PW7 recovered MO1 gold chain, which was the stolen item involved in this case, from PW5, a jewellery shop owner, to whom the first petitioner sold the above gold chain. PW1 and PW2 identified the petitioners as well as MO1 gold chain. The case was then transferred to the Ochira Police Station, and a crime was registered in connection with the aforesaid incident. After the completion of the investigation, PW6, the S.I of Police, Ochira laid the final report before the learned Magistrate.

6. Among the seven prosecution witnesses examined before the Trial Court, PW1, PW2 and PW5 testified before the Court about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime. PW5 stated in unequivocal terms about the sale of MO1 gold chain to him by the first petitioner herein. PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannar, gave evidence about the information received from the first petitioner during custodial interrogation about the sale of MO1 gold chain by him to PW5. PW1 and PW2 identified MO1 gold chain after the recovery of the said item from PW5, on the basis of the information received from the first petitioner. PW1 and PW2 also identified the petitioners as two among the three persons