O R D E R

Convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein. The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent police filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 21.01.2004 at 5.00 p.m when the defacto complainant was boarding the Electric Train at Mambalam Railway Station, the accused had snatched Thali Kayiru along with Mangal Suthra and gold coins weighing 24 ½ grams from the defacto complainant's neck with a view to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to her. Hence the accused has committed an offence under Section 379 IPC.

2.On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the respondent has proved the charge under Section 379 IPC and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section

379 IPC and sentenced her to undergo one year imprisonment.

3.Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore made in C.C.No.6282 of 2004 dated 18.12.2009, the accused preferred criminal appeal in C.A.No.15/2010 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.

4.After hearing both the parties and also perusing the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Ex.P1 to P.4, the following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the order of conviction under Section 379 IPC against the appellant is sustainable?

2. Whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court is excessive?

5.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.01.2004, at about 5 p.m., at Mambalam Railway Station, Broad-gauge platform No.4, in the train that goes to Tambaram, the defacto complainant Sulochana and her sister Kalyani were sitting in the ladies compartment. When the train started to move slowly, the accused got into the train and snatched the Thali rope with Thali around 4 ¼ grams and the gold coins 10 in numbers weighing 2 grams each and thereby committed theft of 24 ½ grams of gold jewels. The accused after snatching the gold jewels, when the train was moving, got down from the train. The defacto complainant and her sister also got down and caught hold of the accused and produced the accused at Egmore Railway Police Station with the properties and placed the complaint, which was registered in Crime No.87/2004 on the file of the Egmore Railway Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Police filed the final report against the accused with the above said details under Section

379 IPC.

6. Heard both side and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though the theft occurred in the public place i.e., at Railway Station, no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the case of prosecution. There is a delay of three hours in filing the FIR.

8. After going through the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, this Court finds that P.W.1 deposed that on 21.01.2004 at 5 p.m., she and her sister Kalyani, P.W.2 and her brother Chandramohan, P.W.3 went to T.Nagar for purchase of clothes and after that they came to 4th platform in Mambalam Railway Station. The accused snatched her thali kayiru when she was about to board the train. Immediately, P.W.1 got down along with P.W.2 and with the help of public, they caught hold of the accused and produced her before the police with jewels. The jewels were seized under Ex.P2- Form 95 and after filing petition before the Court, the jewels were handed over to P.W.1 and her evidence is duly corroborated by her sister P.W.2 and in fact, P.W.2 has clearly deposed regarding the act of the accused in snatching the thali rope hanging in the neck of P.W.1, that the accused who was standing behind P.W.1, pulled the thali rope and committed the theft of jewels. At the time of boarding the train, the said incident is said to have taken place.

9.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1 who was travelling in the gents compartment, on that day, after hearing hue and c