Identifying credible witnesses and evidence is crucial in robbery cases; conviction was upheld despite defenses surrounding witness credibility.

1. The petitioner / A1 was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge - cum - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore / trial Court in S.C.No.16 of 2011, dated 17.02.2012, for offence under S.394 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. Similarly, A2 and A3 were convicted for offence under S.394 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner / A1 and A3 preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore / lower appellate Court. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 18.07.2013 in C.A.No.45 of 2012 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.16 of 2011, dated 17.02.2012, against which the petitioner / A1 is before this Court, by way of this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Since there was no representation for the petitioner, this Court appointed Ms. D. Chandralekha as Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

3. The gist of the case is that on 14.01.2009, at about 08.30 p.m., near grave yard at Kagithapattarai, Vellore, while one Panchacharam and PW2 taking drinks, the petitioner / A1, A2 and A3 attacked them and committed theft of cellphone, wrist watch and currency notes all worth Rs.3,550/- and caused grievous injury to them. On the complaint [Ex.P1], an FIR in Crime No.24 of 2009 [Ex.P10] was registered and the injured persons were sent to medical treatment. After registration of the case, the respondent Police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P3], Rough Sketch [Ex.P12], arrested the accused, recorded their confession statements [Ex.P4], pursuant to the confession statement, recovered the Material Objects under Seizure Mahazars [Exs.P5 to P8]. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore and it was taken on file as P.R.C.No.14 of 2009. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge - cum - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and it was renumbered as S.C.No.16 of 2011. During trial, 12 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16 and 10 Material Objects were collected as MO1 to MO10 on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On completion of the trial, the petitioner / A1 and A2 and A3 were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows: -
(i) The admitted case of PW2 is that when he was having liquor along with Panchacharam on 14.01.2009, during night hours at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner / A1, A2 and A3 alleged to have committed assault and robbery. PW2 for the first time had seen the accused and he has not identified them during investigation. When the accused appeared before the trial Court for the first time, PW2 identified the accused as though they committed the offence, which is highly doubtful. PW2 admitted that at the time of occurrence, he and his relative Panchacharam were in a intoxicated condition due to having liquor. While being so, they cannot identify the accused who committed the offence. This fact is lost sight by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. He further submitted that the witness Panchacharam died subsequent to the occurrence for some other reason. The only witness available to the occurrence is PW2. The evidence of PW2 is highly doubtful. PW1 though stated that he was along with PW2 and Panchacharam on the fateful day, he also consumed alcohol with them. It is to be noted that none of the witnesses stated that PW1 sustained any injury and he took part in rescuing PW2 and Panchacharam.