(Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 02.09.2022 in Crl.A.No.68 of 2021, on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 08.09.2021 made in C.C.No.173 of 2019, on the file of District Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli.)

Common Order:

1. Crl.R.C.No.1636 of 2022 is filed by A1 and Crl.R.C.No.1671 of 2022 is filed by A2 in C.C.No.173 of 2019.

2. The petitioners/A1 and A2 were convicted by the trial Court in C.C.No.173 of 2019 by the judgment dated 08.09.2021 for offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo each three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, both the petitioners preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.68 of 2021 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 02.09.2022, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, against which, the present revisions are filed.

                   2.(i)The gist of the prosecution case is that on 02.02.2011 at about 15.00 hours, when the victim Chinnammal was going to her agricultural land, two persons followed her in a bike. One of them got down, using a cutter, cut the 4 sovereigns of gold chain from her neck and another person was waiting in the bike and both of them fled from the scene.

                   (ii)Thereafter, she went crying, informed PW2, her adjacent land owner, who asked her to go home and he informed PW1, son of the victim.

                   (iii)PW1 along with his mother/victim went to the police station, lodged a complaint to the respondent police. The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalasekaran, received the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.190 of 2011 for offence under Section 392 of I.P.C.

                   (iv)The Special Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch, enquired the witnesses present in the scene and thereafter PW12 took up investigation. On 09.09.2012, the successor to PW12 continued investigation.

                   (v)Since similar kinds of offences occurred in that area, a special team was formed. PW14 conducted road check on 30.06.2012 and at about 7.30 a.m., a red colour Qualis car with Kerala Registration No.KL-10-L-4251 was intercepted, in which 12 persons including the driver found. Out of 11 occupants, 6 persons enquired by PW14 and 5 persons enquired by Inspector Eswaran. During enquiry, they gave contradictory statements and further strenuous enquiry conducted.

                   (vi)A1 & A2/petitioners herein admitted and confessed the commission of offence in this case and other similar offences. A1 gave a confession/Ex.P13 and A2 gave a confession/Ex.P14.

                   (vii)Based on the confession, the police team went to Muthoot Fincorp, where jewels pledged and the police seized the gold jewels through seizure mahazar/Ex.P15.

                   (viii)PW13 on coming to know about the petitioners’ arrest in another case and detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, on 11.07.2012 obtained P.T. Warrant. Thereafter formal arrest shown in this case.

3. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW15 examined, Exs.P1 to P15 marked and M.O.1 produced. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioners and the lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction as stated above.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners falsely implicated in this case. Admittedly, PW1/son of victim not an eyewitness. The victim, mother of PW1 is the only person, who had seen the accused who snatched her chain. The victim in this case not examined as witness, since she died during investigation. PW2 projected eyewitness admit that he was in the field at the time of incident. PW3, PW4 and PW5 are neighbours. They admit that they have not seen the occurrence proper and they were informed about the incident. PW6 and PW7 other neighbours, who are witnesses to the observation mahazar and rough sketch. PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses to the arrest and recovery. Both admit that they do not know what is written in the confession and seizure mahazar and at the request of the police they merely signed. PW10 is another hearsay witness, who was informed about the incident by PW1 when PW10 was in Tiruvannamalai. PW11 is the only witness projected as eyewitness, which the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court heavily relied.

5. He further referring to the evidence of PW11 submitted that PW11 in his evidence deposed that on 02.02.2011 at about 2.30 p.m., when he was going to his field, he saw two persons standing near the victim’s field, half an-hour later, when he came back, he saw those two persons riding the bike at high speed. At about 6.00 p.m., he saw a crowd near the house of the victim, Chinnammal and at that time he came to know that two persons who came in bike, cut the 4 sovereigns chain and escaped. He identified the accused in the docs for the first time, that too, after 8 years of the incident.

6. He further submitted that in this case, no test identification parade conducted to identify the accused. Admittedly, the accused are strangers to the area, hence identification parade is must. PW12 speaks about the registration of the case and initial investigation conducted. PW13 speaks about P.T. Warrant. The star witness projected against the petitioners is PW14/Inspector of Police, in the special team. From the evidence of PW14 it is seen that confession of A1 and A2 marked as Exs.P13 and P14. Pursuant to the confession, recovery shown from Muthoot Fincorp, Ganapathy, Coimbatore seized and seizure mahazar marked is Ex.P15.

7. Admittedly, no records collected from Muthoot Fincorp and produced in this case. Muthoot Fincorp is a registered company, wherein procedures followed. Normally the identity of the person, who pledge the jewels, collected along with other documents. But none of the documents collected to connect the petitioners herein found. Further, the complaint is that the victim’s gold chain was cut and snatched, but in this case, M.O.1 is two bangles. Though explanation given that gold chain converted to bangles, there is no supporting materials. Thus, in this case, identity of the accused and recovery not proved in the manner known to law. The trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court placed undue reliance on the evidence of PW14 in convicting the petitioners, which is not sustainable. Hence prayed for acquittal of the petitioners.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the contention of the petitioners, stating that petitioners have got criminal antecedents and are involved in similar offences. On 02.02.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., when the victim Chinnammal was going to her agricultural land, both accused followed her in a bike. One of them got down from the bike, using a cutter, cut the 4 sovereigns of gold chain from her neck and another accused waiting in the bike and both the accused fled from the scene. The victim, a rustic villager was in a state of shock and did not know what to do. Thereafter, she went crying and informed PW2, her adjacent land owner, who asked her to go home and informed PW1, son of the victim. PW1 along with his mother/victim went to the police station and lodged the complaint.

9. The adjacent land owners and neighbours examined confirming that the gold chain was snatched from the victim. During the relevant period, several cases of chain snatching registered in and around the area. Hence, a special team formed to nab the criminals. PW14 conducted road check on 30.06.2012 and at about 7.30 a.m., found a red colour Qualis car with Kerala Registration No.KL-10-L-4251 and intercepted, in which 12 persons including the driver found. 11 persons asked to alight from the car and they were enquired independently. During enquiry, they gave contradictory statements and PW14 conducted extensive enquiry with petitioners/A1 and A2, who confessed the offence of chain snatching not only from Chinnammal, from the others in the neighbouring area. They admitted that they used to snatch and rob gold chain and articles and sell them in Kerala, convert them into other form of jewels and later pledge them in Muthoot Fincorp at high principal amount and enjoying the same. The confessions of A1 and A2/Exs.P13 and Ex.P14. led to the fact of pledging of jewels. Ex.P15 is the seizure mahazar, through which, gold jewels seized and the chain of victim converted to bangles found, corresponding to the weight, seized and was handed over to the victim in this case.

10. In this case, PW11, the adjacent land owner of the victim, had seen both petitioners, who has nothing to do in that area standing in a suspicious manner and thereafter saw them speeding away in their bike. Thus, the chain of events, from the snatching of chain to its recovery, was clearly spoken by the witnesses, which the trial Court and Lower Appellate Court rightly considered and convicted the petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revisions.

11. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is seen that on 02.02.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., the victim Chinnammal was going to her agricultural land, at that time the accused followed her in a bike. One of them got down from the bike, using a cutter, cut the 4 sovereigns of gold chain, while another was waiting in the bike both accused sped away from the scene. The victim, went crying, informed PW2, her adjacent land owner, who asked her to go home and informed PW1, son of the victim and thereafter complaint lodged in this case.

12. In this case, all the adjacent land owners and other witnesses all informed about the incident, except Chinnammal, nobody had seen the accused and occurrence proper. The only other eye witness is PW11, who is also an adjacent land owner. At the relevant point of time, he had seen two persons near the Chinnammal’s field and half-an-hour later, when he came back, he saw those two persons speeding away in the bike from the scene. Neither in the complaint nor in any of the documents, the description of the accused persons given. In this case, the petitioners are strangers to the place. Hence, identification becomes necessary. The victim, Chinnammal died during investigation. PW11 not called for any identification and no test identification parade conducted.

13. The special team members conducted road check, PW14 on 30.06.2012 and at about 7.30 a.m., stopped a red colour Qualis car with Kerala Registration No.KL-10-L-4251, in which 12 persons including the driver found. Out of 11 persons, 6 person enquired by PW14 and 5 person enquired by Inspector Eswaran. During enquiry, they gave contradictory statements, which caused doubt and they were further enquired. The petitioners gave a confession admitting their involvement in committing chain snatching and robbery not only in that area but also in other areas. Both had given a confession/Exs.P13 & P14. But the witnesses to the arrest and confession, PW8 and PW9 admit that they do not know what is written in the confession statement and they merely signed at the request of the Police. Hence, confession not proved, in corollary recovery becomes doubtful.

14. Ex.P15 is the seizure mahazar for seizure of jewels from Muthoot Fincorp. Admittedly, none from Muthoot Fincorp examined. In all prudence, some records and documents ought to have been collected from Muthoot Fincorp, the procedure followed in Muthoot Fincorp is to collect, identity proof, personal details and obtain signature from the person who pledges the jewels. Further as mandatory CCTV camera in the Muthoot Fincorp available. From CCTV recordings, persons who come to pledge the jewels will be available. In this case, no steps taken to collect any CCTV footage which is fatal to the prosecution case.

15. Both the Courts below not considered these aspects but given a finding that petitioners/Accused not questioned the witnesses or challenged the arrest and recovery in this case, failing to look into the fact that it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not for the accused to prove innocence. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court needs interference.

16. In view of the same, the judgment of conviction imposed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.68 of 2021 dated 02.09.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli in C.C.Nos.173 of 2019, dated 08.09.2021 are hereby set aside and the petitioners/A1 and A2 are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled.

17. In the result, both Criminal Revision Cases stand allowed.