The appeals are directed against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 08.09.2010 in S.C.No.218 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (4th Fast Track Court) Chennai wherein the 1st appellant / A1 was found guilty for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C., and the 2nd appellant / A2 was found guilty for offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment.The case of the prosecution is that the appellants/accused with an intention to snatch/rob the chain of a woman who was going alone, on 14.05.2009 at 3.00 p.m, had been waiting in Perambur Besat Road, Scout Camp Office and in pursuance of the same, taking advantage that PW1 one Nithyakalyani was walking alone, the first appellant/A1 waylaid and threatened her with a knife and snatched the gold chain, weighing 5 sovereigns and ran away from the scene of occurrence and got on to the bike with which the 2nd appellant/A2 was waiting and both of them escaped from there.After completion of investigation, the respondent had filed a final report before the learned Magistrate for offences under Section 394 read with 397 of I.P.C. On appearance of the appellants/Accused, they were furnished with the copies of the documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge,http://www.judis.nic.inChennai.The Principal Sessions Judge after taking the case on file made over the 3 case to the trial Judge.On appearance of the accused, the Trial Judge framed charges against the first accused/A1 for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. and against the second accused/A2 for the offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C.. When the appellants / Accused were questioned, they denied the charges and sought to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 2 were marked.No evidence was let in on the side of the defence.After completion of evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments of the counsel, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted and and sentenced them as stated above.Taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1, Nithyakalyani/the defacto complainant, she had deposed that she knows the accused and that on 14.05.2009 after attending a funeral while she was coming back home via Carriage Station Beset Road around 3.00 p.m, the first appellant/A1 waylaid, threatened her with a knife and snatched her Gold Chain weighing 5 sovereigns and after he had snatched the chain, she had seen another person waiting with a two wheeler little away from them.She had raised alarm and when the public nearby attempted to apprehend him, he had got on to the pillion of the two wheeler and both of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.She had further deposed that the second person who drove the motor cycle was the person standing second in the Court.Thereafter, she had gone back home and on the next day at 9.00 a.m, she had gone to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondent Police Station and given the complaint.After she had given the complaint against two persons who could be identified and she was asked to come back to the Police Station at 4 p.m. and when she returned to the Police Station, she had seen both the accused in the Police Station and on being enquired she had identified them.The Police have also shown the chain which was snatched and it was shown to her in two pieces and she identified the chain and that the chain was handed over to her at the station and that she had produced the chain in the Court.PW.2 - Babu had deposed that he was working in a shop in Carriage Station Beset Road, Perambur and that P.W1 was known to her and that the accused were also known to him.On 14.05.2009, around 3.00 p.m. the accused had come in a black colour Hero Honda Motor Cycle and that P.W.1 was running behind them shouting 'catch them, catch them' and when he attempted to catch them, he was unable to catch the accused., she had stated that they have snatched her chain.5. P.W.3 Dilip kumar had deposed that on 14.05.2009 around 3.00 p.m, he had gone to the mechanic shop to take his bike which was left for repair and at that time, he had seen the appellants/accused together riding a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle and he had seen one lady running behind the motorcycle shouting that they had snatched her chain and 'catch them, catch them' and when he had attempted to stop the appellants/accused, they had escaped from the scene of occurrence.6. P.W.4 who is stated to have attested the Observation Mahazar did not support the case of the prosecution and he had been treated as hostile.7. P.W.5 had deposed that on 15.05.2009 around 12 p.m, while he was on the way to see his friend, he had seen a group of persons near Venus Bus stop.When he had gone near, he had seen the respondent Police enquiring the first accused/A1 Manohar and the second accused/A2 Rajkumar and they had confessed that they had robed the chain from a lady and while the Police was examining the second accused, he had also stated the same.The first appellant/A1 had confessed to the crime and the Police had recorded the confession statement and that he had attested the same, this signature in the confession were marked as Exs.Thereafter, the respondent had taken him to Kalmandabam, Grace Garden 4th Street and the second appellant/A2 Rajkumar had identified the motorcycle and the motorcycle was recovered under the Recovery Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P4 and that he had signed in the Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 was taken to his house at Vannarapettai from where the respondent Police recovered the gold chain which was in two pieces.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 Manohar handed over a steel knife which was recovered in a Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, he along with the accused were taken to the Police station and admitted portion of the confession statement of the accused was marked as Exs.He had further deposed that the respondent examined him.8. P.W.6 the Sub-Inspector of Police at K1, Sembiam Police Station, had deposed that on 15.05.2009 while he was in duty, P.W.1 Nithyakalyani appeared before him at 9.00a.m and given a written complaint.Based on which, he had registered the case in crime No.342/2009 for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C and registered the FIR, which was marked as Ex.Thereafter, at 9.50 a.m, he had gone to the scene of occurrence along with PW1 and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses Zahir and Manikandan and the Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.Thereafter, he prepared rough sketch which was marked as Ex.Around 12.00 noon, he had arrested the first appellant/A1 near Venus Bus Stop and when he enquired the first accused/A1, he had given a confession statement in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish and he had recorded the confession statement (Ex.P6) and thereafter at 1.00 p.m, the first accused had identified the house of the second appellant/A2 and that he had arrested the accused.When he had enquired second appellant /A2, he had given a confession statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish.Based on the confession statement, he had identified the motorcycle used by the appellants/accused and he had recovered the motorcycle under Ex.P4 Mahazar.Then he recovered the articles involved in Exs.P1 and P12 in Form 95 and that on the next day gone to the scene of occurrence and enquired PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW 4 and one Manikandan and they had come along with the appellants/ accused to the Police Station.Subsequently, he had summoned PW 1 and she was asked to identify the goldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 chain and that she had identified the gold chain and the appellants/accused and the motorcycle used by them during the occurrence and thereafter he prepared a Remand Report and produced the appellants/accused before the Court and after completion of investigation and after getting opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, has filed the final report for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. Based on the evidence laid, the trial court has found the accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused assails the Judgment on the following grounds:There are several contradictions and embellishments in the prosecution case.The appellants and the witnesses are strangers and that nothing had been stated about their identity.The occurrence is stated to have been committed in a locality where there was several persons during noon time.There has been a great delay in the complaint being given to the Police Station and the FIR reaching the Court, more particularly, the printed FIR having reached the Court only after the arrest of the appellants/accused creating a grave doubt in the prosecution case.The manner in which the arrest is stated to be effected greater suspicion and doubt volumes in the prosecution case.The evidence with regard to the arrest of the accused is unbelievable.The identification of the accused for the first time in Court leads to suspicion.It is highly strange that P.W.2 states that he knows the appellants/accused and has not stated anything about them during the course of investigation.The evidence of PW1 with regard to the person who had threatened her is doubtful.Though the witnesses have been stated to be examined on the same day, these statements have reached the Court after several days.The Trial Court did not take into consideration the contradiction evidences of PWs1 and 6 (Investigation Officer) regarding the arrest of the appellants/accused.Further, PW 2 & PW 3 could not have been the witnesses to the occurrence, since their statement with regard to PW2 running a mechanic shed and PW 3 having come to see his two wheeler cannot be believed and as per the observation Mahazar, no such mechanic shed was available and that as per the evidence of PW1, there were other public in the locality and nobody has been examined by the Police.State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, B-4, Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kancheepuram District.He would further submit that the reason for the delay in giving the complaint has been explained by PW1 and the reasons for the delay is also reasonable.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the non holding of the identification parade is not a fatal to the prosecution, since the appellants / accused were arrested on the next day and that the PW1 had identified them in the Police Station and had also identified them in the Court.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused would submit that PW1 is not clear as to who is the person who snatched her chain and who is the person who drove the two wheeler and would submit that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants/accused based on the unconvincing evidence.As per the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it was near a mechanic shop and PW2 and PW3 who were in the mechanic shop were stated to have witnessed the occurrence.Strangely, in this case none of the witnesses havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 informed the Police about the occurrence immediately, despite the occurrence happening in a busy locality during day time.The complaint has been preferred to the Police on the next day.While analysing the evidences of PW1, PW2, and PW3, nothing had been stated about the identity or any identification marks regarding the appellants / accused.As per the evidence of PW1, after giving a complaint to the respondent at 9.00 a.m, she had gone back home and that she was asked to come back only at 4.00 p.m and when she had gone there, she had seen both the accused in the Police station and that she had identified them and that the respondent Police had shown her chain and that she identified the chain and the chain was returned to her on the same day.Of course CCTV footage has now become a very important tool for the Police which helps them in a long way in crime detection but this is a facility which is not available in all nook and corner of the State.The Police personnel needs to be educatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in on the availability of a provision under Cr.P.C. For identifying the 12 accused person.By following this procedure, the element of doubt that arises about identity of the accused for the first time in the Court after a very long gap, can also be avoided.”The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV , Chennai.2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.vum Crl.A.Nos.647 and 769 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code