ORDER

This Revision has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the order made in Crl.A.No.37 of 2019 dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.

2.The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.636 of 2008 for the offences under Section 394 I.P.C.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam after completing the formalities taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.273 of

2008 and framed the charge sheet against the petitioners.

4.The specific case of the prosecution is that, on 09.09.2018 at about 2.00 P.M. both PW1 and PW2 were waiting for the bus at Pudukuiyanur Bus Stop. A private bus namely S.P.S. proceeding to Sathyamangalam to Bannari was halted in the place of occurrence. Four persons aged about 20 to 25 years emerged from the bus stop in the waiting shed and after noticing the place, the petitioners were snatched 6 ¼ sovereigns of gold chain from PW1 and PW2 and ran away from the place. On hearing the noise of PW1 and PW2, PW3 and PW4 came to the place. Subsequently, they made a complaint and also taken to the hospital for taking treatment and after the investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet.

5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial on the side of the prosecution totally 9 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9, 29 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. Besides, 4 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4.

6.On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the guilt of the Revision Petitioner for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. (2 counts) and convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment and also A1 to A4 convicted for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to under go 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have filed the appeal before the Principal District and sessions Judge, Erode in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019 and the same was handed over the same to the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge for disposal. The III-Additional District and Sessions Judge after hearing the appeal, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

7.Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner would submit that the petitioners are unknown persons to the PW1 and PW2, who are occurrence witnesses and they have stated that subsequently, they came to know about the accused name. After mentioning the names in the papers and even they have not properly identified the accused and further there is contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The PW1 has stated that A1 and A2 only snatched the chain and PW2 says that A3 and A4 snatched the chain and there is material contradiction which would go to the route of the case of the prosecution. Even before the trial, they have stated only as unknown persons. If the accused are unknown persons, they have to be identified in the proper manner known to the law by conducting the identification parade. The date of occurrence was 09.09.2008, whereas, the accused was arrested on the next day itself. Whereas, the identification parade was conducted only after a week thereafter, where it creates suspicious that when the PW1 and PW2 identified the accused for the first time in the jail and there is possibility to show the petitioners face either in photos or in the some other manner. Therefore the petitioners were not properly identified during the identification parade. The trial Court unfortunately failed to appreciate the materials and failed to consider the contradictions and erroneously convicted the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal and the appellate court as the final Court of fact finding, without re-appreciating his evidence independently