Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.05.2005, made in S.C.No.382 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default in payment, to undergo four months simple imprisonment. 2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the accused stating that on 24.02.2004, at about 17.00 hours, at Gandhi Park bus stand in Coimbatore city, the accused approached witness Sharmila by riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 38L 3773 in a slow motion and all of a sudden, he snatched away three sovereigns of gold chain worth about Rs.14,000/-from her neck and on seeing this, the public who approached to catch the accused, at that time, he threatened them on knife point and also throwing a soda bottle on the road and thus escaped, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and committed the matter to the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore and the Principal Sessions Court made over it to the Additional District and Sessions Court. The Additional District and Sessions Court after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 & M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked. 4. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witness is as follows: (i) P.W.1 is the complainant and his wife is P.W.2 Sharmila, who was wearing a M.O.1 gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns. 4. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witness is as follows: (i) P.W.1 is the complainant and his wife is P.W.2 Sharmila, who was wearing a M.O.1 gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns. On 24.02.2004, at about 5.00 p.m., while P.W.1 and P.W.2 were standing in the Gandhi park bus stop, the accused came on the way by riding M.O.4 Hero Honda bearing Registration No. TN 38L 3773 and crossed over P.W.1 and P.W.2, but immediately, the accused took U turned towards them and instantly in a moment snatched M.O.1 from P.W.2's neck and sped away, inspite of rising of hue and cry by P.W.2, and also rising of alarms " thirudan thirudan" by P.W.2, which was heard and taken note of instantaneously by P.W.3 to P.W.6 who were threatened by the accused by means of hurling of soda bottles which were broken and also by furling of M.O.2 knife and the accused was sped away from the place. (ii) Immediately, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to the police station at 5.45 p.m., on 24.02.2004 and gave a complaint Ex.P1 before P.W.11/Balakrishnan, Inspector of Police, who was incharge and registered the case in Crime No.258 of 2004 under Section 397 IPC and prepared a printed F.I.R. under Ex.P8 and took up the matter for investigation. (iii) On the same day, at about 6.45 p.m., P.W.11 went to the place of occurrence along with P.W.1 and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.6 Gangadharan and one Rajan and drew rough sketch Ex.P9 and collected M.O.3 broken soda bottle and M.O.5 soda bottle neck pellet in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses under Ex.P2-seizure mahazar for M.O.3 and M.O.5. Then he examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and recorded their statements. (iv) On 25.02.2004, at 12.00 noon, while P.W.11 was engaged himself in traffic checking, he arrested the accused along with M.O.4 motor cycle and enquired the matter in the presence of witnesses P.W.8/Rajendran and one Murugesan, at 1.30 p.m., the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he stated that he is ready to hand over the hidden material objects. The admitted portion of the confession statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P4. The admitted portion of the confession statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P4. In pursuance of that, he handed over M.O.1/gold chain, M.O.4/motor bike, M.O.6/an unbroken soda bottle and M.O.2/knife with rexin cover and seized all the material objects under Seizure mahazar Ex.P5. Then P.W.11 went to the police station at 11.00 p.m. and on the very next day, he sent the accused for judicial custody and examined P.W.8 and P.W.10 and recorded their statements. The material objects were also sent to the concerned Court. (v) On 04.03.2004, P.W.11 gave a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, to conduct a test Identification parade. On his request, Identification parade was conducted on 18.03.2004 by P.W.9 Sujatha, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore. The requisition sent by P.W.11 and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was marked as Ex.P6 and the proceedings of test Identification parade has been marked as Ex.P7. P.W.1 was asked to identify the accused, accordingly, the accused was identified in the Identification parade. After completing his investigation, P.W.11 filed a charge sheet against the accused/appellant herein for the offence as stated above. 5. The learned trial Judge placed the incriminating evidence against the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same and stated that he had not committed such offence. On his side, the accused examined D.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.D1 and D2 stating that P.W.8 was cited as P.W.5 in C.C.No.209 of 2004. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 392 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 6. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, Mrs. M. Rajamani, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. Because of his poor financial status, he was implicated in so many cases. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that P.W.8 Rajendran is one of the witnesses in one case and he also deposed against the appellant herein in that case. That factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Since the accused is bald headed person, in the Identification parade all the witnesses were identified him easily. So the Identification parade is not conducted in accordance with law. That factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Since the accused is bald headed person, in the Identification parade all the witnesses were identified him easily. So the Identification parade is not conducted in accordance with law. The trial Court has not considered the aspects in proper perspective. Hence, she prayed that a benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the accused and acquitted him. 7. Resisting the same, Mr. C. Emalias, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that as P.W.1 to P.W.5 are eye witnesses, they identified the accused easily. Further, the accused has been facing so many cases. It is a clear case of chain snatching and the vehicle M.O.4 used by the appellant/accused, was also involved in the previous case for the similar nature of offence. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is cogent and natural and there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. So the trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record. 9. The alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 24.02.2004, at 17.00 hours and Ex.P1 complaint has been given to P.W.11/Inspector of Police, at 17.45 hours. While considering the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2, P.W.2/Sharmina was wearing the gold chain M.O.1 and the chain was allegedly snatched by the accused. P.W.1/Suresh Narayanan, who is her husband, was also present at the time of occurrence. Since there is no enmity between P.W.1 & P.W.2 and the accused, there is no reason for them, to depose against the accused. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 24.02.2004. On 26.02.2004, the material object M.O.1/chain was identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has been corroborated by independent witnesses namely, P.W.3/Kuppuraj, P.W.4/Manickaraj and P.W.5/Arumugam. In my opinion, there is no reason for discarding their evidence. So I am of the view that the appellant/accused herein has committed the offence using M.O.2 knife and snatched the chain M.O.1 from P.W.2. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has been corroborated by independent witnesses namely, P.W.3/Kuppuraj, P.W.4/Manickaraj and P.W.5/Arumugam. In my opinion, there is no reason for discarding their evidence. So I am of the view that the appellant/accused herein has committed the offence using M.O.2 knife and snatched the chain M.O.1 from P.W.2. When the public P.W.3 and P.W.4 were trying to catch the accused, he hurled soda bottles and disturbed the peace and sped away from the place of occurrence. P.W.11 after receiving the complaint Ex.P1, he registered a case at 5.45 p.m. and went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar at 06.45 p.m., within an hour and seized M.O.3 soda bottle and M.O.5 soda bottle neck pellet under Ex.P2/seizure mahazar. That has been corroborated by P.W.6 Gangadharan, one of the attestors of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar. So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that no such occurrence had been taken place, does not merit acceptance. 11. The accused was arrested on 25.02.2004 before P.W.8/Rajendran, who is one of the attestors. It is true, as per Ex.D1, P.W.8 Rajendran was examined as P.W.5 in C.C.No.209 of 2004. As per Ex.D2, P.W.8 was one of the witnesses, merely because P.W.8 is a witness in one case against the appellant, is not a reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.8. Furthermore, as per Ex.D1, in that case, P.W.8 was turned hostile. As per the evidence of P.W.11, it would clearly prove about the seizure of M.O.1 chain, which was identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and that factum has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 12. It is true, P.W.9/Sujatha, learned Judicial Magistrate conducted identification parade on the request made by P.W.11 under Ex.P6 and the proceedings of the test identification parade was marked as Ex.P7. But here, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the appellant is a bald headed person, it is easy for the witnesses to identify the accused. But, in my opinion, that argument does not hold good. As already stated that there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are eye witnesses and they identified the accused in the Court also. Furthermore, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (crl. But, in my opinion, that argument does not hold good. As already stated that there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are eye witnesses and they identified the accused in the Court also. Furthermore, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) that the appellant not only involved in this case, he has been involved in five more cases in the same nature of offence under Section 379 IPC, but all of them are pending. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was easily identified because of his bald head, does not merit acceptance. 13. As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5., it would clearly prove that the accused/appellant alone had snatched the gold chain M.O.1 from P.W.2 and when they were trying to catch him, he furled the knife and also thrown the soda bottle and disturbed the peace among the public, who were standing in the bus stand and sped away from the place of occurrence. Immediately, after the occurrence, Ex.P1 complaint has been given by P.W.1 and M.O.3 & M.O.5 were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.P2. M.O.1/gold chain has been seized from the accused and the same was identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2 before the Court. Therefore, I am of the view, the prosecution has proved that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 392 r/w 397 IPC. The trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court does not suffer any illegality or irregularity and therefore, it is hereby confirmed. 14. As per the quantum of sentence is concerned, since the accused punishable under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC, sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- were awarded by the trial Court. In my considered view, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is a minimum sentence and hence, it is fair and proper and therefore, it is hereby confirmed. 15. In fine, (i) Criminal appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. (iii) Bail bond, executed by the appellant/accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. 15. In fine, (i) Criminal appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. (iii) Bail bond, executed by the appellant/accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. (iv) The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.