FAZALUDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in this petition assails the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Sec. 379 ipc.

(2.) THE crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that on 18/11/90 at about 6. 45 p. m. on the public road he snatched away a gold chain worn by p. W. 1 weighing 1 = sovereigns - a necklace of `thara' fashion. When she was walking by the side of the road, the accused allegedly came on a bicycle committed the offence of snatching and sped away. P. W. 2 - husband of P. W. 1, had not witnessed the incident. He had gone to a neighbouring shop to make some purchase when the alleged incident happened on the road. P. W. 2 lodged Ext. P1 first Information Statement before the police. P. W. 4 recorded the complaint and registered Ext. P1 (a) FIR on the basis of ext. P1 First Information Statement. Investigation was initially conducted by p. W. 5 who prepared Ext. P2 scene mahazar. P. W. 3 is the attestor to Ext. P2 scene mahazar.

(3.) ON 27/1/91 P. W. 6 - the Circle Inspector of Police, arrested the accused in connection with some other crime. He was interrogated. In the course of interrogation, the accused allegedly made a confession statement about his involvement in the present crime. In such statement, he revealed to the police that the stolen gold chain had been sold by him to P. W. 7. The confession statement was recorded and P. W. 6 proceeded to effect the recovery from P. W. 7. The gold chain as such could not be recovered. It had already been melted by p. W. 7 and only a gold ingot weighing 1 = sovereigns was available with P. W. 7. P. W. 6 seized the same under Ext. P3 seizure mahazar and Ext. P3 (a) is the relevant portion of the confession statement. P. W. 8 is the Sub Inspector of police who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.