(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.69 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.156 of 2019, on the file of District Munsifcum- Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli.)

Common Order

1. Crl.R.C.No.1637 of 2022 is filed by A1 and Crl.R.C.No.1670 of 2022 is filed by A2 in C.C.No.156 of 2019.

2. The petitioners/A1 and A2 were convicted by the trial Court in C.C.No.156 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.69 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.

3.(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that on 11.02.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the de facto complainant, Chinnammal was grazing her goats along with PW2 near Kurinji Junction in Periyanna Gounder filed. Both of them were standing under a Palm tree. At that time, two persons, one aged about 22 years and another aged about 42 years came in a bike, asked for the address and direction to go to Chookanur, thereafter they left. A few minutes later one of them came from behind, held the hands of PW1 and snatched three sovereigns of gold chain from her. PW1 and PW2 raised alarm, by then these two persons fled from the scene. PW1 came home informed her son and husband. PW1 was illiterate, she does not know to read and write.

                     (ii)PW3, sister-in-law on coming to know about the incident enquired her, thereafter she took PW1 to the police station and lodged a complaint.

                     (iii)One Pongiyagounder, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.233 of 2011 for offence under Section 392 of I.P.C.

                     (iv)PW11 took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and enquired the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence.

                     (v)PW2 was with PW1 at the time of occurrence. PW4 is the husband of PW1. PW5 is the son of PW1, PW6 is daughter-in-law of PW1 and PW7 is cousin brother of PW4. Except PW2, all other witness admit that they were informed about the incident and they are not eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses in this case are PW1 and PW2.

                     (vi)PW8 is the witness for observation mahazar. PW9 and PW10 are the witnesses for arrest and confession and PW11 is the Investigating Officer.

                     (vii)PW12 is the Inspector of Police, who on coming to know about arrest of the petitioners in another case and confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, obtained PT warrant on 11.07.2012. Thereafter formal arrest shown in this case.

                     (viii)PW13, Inspector of Police, Member of special team 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 intercepted the vehicle, in which 12 persons including the driver found. Out of 11 persons, 6 person enquired by PW13 and 5 person enquired by Inspector Eswaran. During enquiry, they gave contradictory statements and further intensive enquiry conducted.

                     (ix)A1 & A2/petitioners herein admitted and confessed the commission of offence in this case and other similar offences. A1 gave confession/Ex.P15 and A2 gave confession/Ex.P16.

                     (x)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.P17.

                     (xi) PW14, on completion of investigation filed charge sheet in this case.

4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 examined, Exs.P1 to P17 marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioners as stated above.

5. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in this case PW1 and PW2 are the two eyewitnesses. Both of them not identified the accused. There is no physical or any identification given in the complaint except for the age of two persons. PW1 confirms that accused never shown to her and no test identification parade conducted. PW2 go one step further and states that there was test identification parade conducted and she identified the accused during Test Identification Parade. In this case, no test identification parade proceedings produced. Hence, identification of the accused not done.

6. PW9 and PW10 are the witnesses for arrest and recovery. These two witnesses admit that they do not know to write and not aware what is written in the confession and seizure mahazar. They merely signed on the request of Police. The only witness, who speaks about the incident is PW13, the Inspector of special team, who states that on 30.06.2012, a road check was conducted and at that time, the petitioners gave contradictory statement and they were enquired intensively and both admit their commission of offence of chain snatching not only from Chinnammal and from others in the neighbouring area. Based on their confession gold chain recovered from Muthoot Fincorp.

7. Ex.P15 is the seizure mahazar through which gold chain seized from Muthoot Fincorp, Ganapathypuram, Coimbatore. Admittedly, in this case, none examined from Muthoot Fincorp and no documents produced to connect the petitioners to the recovery. Thus, in this case, the identification and the recovery, both not proved. The trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court glossed over the same and gave explanation that the accused not questioned the witnesses or challenged the arrest and recovery and convicted the petitioner, since the petitioner involved in other cases of similar nature, which is not proper. Hence, prayed for acquittal of the petitioners.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the contention of the petitioners, stating that petitioners got criminal antecedents, both involved in several similar offence cases. On 11.02.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the de facto complainant, Chinnammal was grazing goats along with PW2 near Kurinji Junction in Periyanna Gounder field. Both of them were standing under a Palm tree. At that time, two persons came in a bike, asked for the address and direction to go to Chookanur, thereafter they left. A few minutes later one of them came from behind, held the hands of PW1 and snatched three sovereigns of gold chain from her. PW1 and PW2 raised alarm, by the time, those two persons fled from the scene. PW1 came home informed her son and husband. PW1 was illiterate, she does not know to read and write. She waited for her husband and son to come.

9. PW3, sister-in-law of PW1 on coming to know about the incident enquired PW1, thereafter she took PW1 to the police station and lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.233 of 2011 registered for offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. PW11 took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and enquired the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence. PW2 is the person, who was with PW1 at the time of occurrence. PW4 is the husband of PW1. PW5 is the son of PW1, PW6 is the daughter-in-law of PW1 and PW7 is the cousin brother of PW4. All these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The eyewitnesses in this case are PW1 and PW2.

10. During the relevant period, several cases of chain snatching happened in and around the area. Hence, a special team formed to nab the criminals. PW13, Inspector of Police, Member of special team 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 which was intercepted, in which 12 persons including the driver found. Out of 11 person, 6 person enquired by PW13 and 5 person enquired by Inspector Eswaran. During enquiry, they gave contradictory statements and further intensive enquiry conducted. A1 & A2/petitioners admitted and confessed the committing robbery in this case and other similar cases. A1 gave confession/Ex.P15 and A2 gave confession/Ex.P16. 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.P17. Thus, the chain of events, from the snatching of chain to its recovery, clearly proved 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 11.02.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the de facto complainant, Chinnammal was grazing her goats along with PW2 near Kurinji Junction in Periyanna Gounder filed. Both of them were standing under the shadow of Palm tree. At that time, two persons came in a bike, asked for the address and direction to Chookanur, thereafter they left, a few minutes thereafter, one of them came from behind, held the hands of PW1 and snatched three sovereigns of gold chain from her. PW1 and PW2 raised alarm and the accused fled from the scene. PW1, a rustic villager, came home informed her son and husband. Thereafter complaint lodged and a case registered.

12. Further in this case, PW1 confirms that no test identification parade conducted. PW2 go one step further and states that identification parade conducted and she identified the accused. But no identification parade proceedings produced in this case. Apart from it, all the other witnesses are only in the nature of hearsay and the case unveiled after the road check and arrest by PW13 on 30.06.2012. In this case, the identification of the petitioners not proved.

13. Ex.P17 is the seizure mahazar for seizure of jewels from Muthoot Fincorp. Admittedly, no person from Muthoot Fincorp examined. In all prudence, records and documents ought to have been collected from Muthoot Fincorp. The procedure followed in Muthoot Fincorp before pledging jewels is that they will collect identity proof, personal details and signature. Further there is CCTV camera in the Muthoot Fincorp, but no CCTV recordings collected.

14. Both the Courts below not considered these aspects but had 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 it is not for the accused to prove their innocence. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court needs interference.

15. In view of the same, the judgment of conviction imposed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.69 of 2021 dated 02.09.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli in C.C.No.156 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.

16. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases stand allowed.