ORDER : This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.76/2009 dated 03.12.2013 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.3514/2007 dated 27/29.06.2009 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2007 at around 05.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding at M.C.C. “B” Block, Kuvempunagar at the back side road of Sri B.S.Channabasappa’s House, the accused who was waiting along with his Suzuki Motor Bike bearing Regn.No.KA17 S6005, threw chilly powder on the eyes of the complainant and snatched one golden Mangalya chain weighing 50.5 grams of Goa cutting design and another chain of coffee seeds weighing 40 grams from her neck. Subsequent to snatching of the aforesaid gold items, accused went away in his motor bike. 3. Thereafter, on filing of complaint by the complainant, Crime No.50/2007 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Subsequent to recording FIR, the IO investigated the case and laid charge sheet in C.C.No.3514/2007 against the accused person. Charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPOC, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequent to framing of charge, the prosecution in order to substantiate the guilt of the accused, got examined as many as 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution the incriminating statement as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused declined the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced so far. Subsequently, he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing the Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the entire material evidence available on record, rendered the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court was challenged before the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.76/2009. The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court was challenged before the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.76/2009. The first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.12.2013 confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court dismissing the appeal. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/accused by urging various grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have committed serious error in relying only on the interested testimony of PW.1/complainant, when her evidence is not corroborated by any independent witness. Further, he contends that the courts below have erred in relying on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7 and 9, when their evidence is full of material omissions, contradictions which is not cogent and reliable. Further, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner on the ground that identification parade is not conducted and that the witness had no occasion to see and identify the petitioner/accused coupled with non-identification of M.O.1 by PW.1 complainant being her property. 5. It is further contended that the Courts below erred in relying on recovery of M.O.1Golden Mangalya Chain wherein the evidence of PW.3 reveals that he had the documents for receiving of such things and used to issue bills etc. and without their being any investigation into those documents, the allegations against the petitioner/accused goes to the roots of the theory of the prosecution. Therefore, when such being the case, the petitioner ought to have been given benefit of doubt by acquitting him. He further contends that there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 with respect to place of incident as per Ex.P2 – Spot mahazar. Further, the Courts below ought to have discarded the case of the prosecution on the ground that after long gap of three months from the alleged date of incident, the voluntary statement of petitioner was recorded as per Ex.P6 and only to suit the case of the prosecution upon the complaint/Ex.P1, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. Further, PW.5 and 6 are the stock witnesses for the prosecution and their evidence has no credence. Further, PW.5 and 6 are the stock witnesses for the prosecution and their evidence has no credence. The Courts below also erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 392 IPC when there being no cogent and reliable evidence in that regard to attract ingredients of Section 392 IPC. 6. He further contends that PW.1 being the complainant did not identify the accused but she came to know through the police that the accused was the person who robbed the golden mangalya chain and also two row golden mangalya chain. But there is no specific evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Despite of it, the trial Court had given more credentiality to the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and Pws.7 and 9 being the IO in part in respect of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar and also seizure mahazar at Ex.P3. 7. PW.6 who is the owner of the aforesaid bike has given a go bye to his entire statement said to have been recorded by the IO during the investigation. The evidence of PW.6 runs contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and further contradictory to the statement of PWs.7 and 9. Further, PWs.3 and 4 have been subjected to incisive cross-examination. But PW.3 who is the proprietor of Gold Jewellary shop as where the accused said to have pledged MO.1 – Golden mangalya chain which was seized by PW.7 by conducting seizure mahazar at Ex.P3. Mere because PW.3 admitted that he is having a document regarding the purchase of MO.1 – golden mangalya chain from the accused and also saying that the police have not recovered the documents from his possession but the police did not ask him to produce those documents related to M.O.1. But none of the articles have been recovered during the seizure of M.O.1 – golden mangalya chain. This lacuna on the part of the investigating agency creates doubt in a theory put forth by the prosecution and does not repose any confidence and the lacuna in the investigation relating to fulcrum of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar as wherein a person said to be arraigned as accused had spread the chilli powder on the eyes of PW.1 and the IO did not made any endeavour to seize anything at the scene of crime where that chilli powder was spread. This vital evidence on the part of the prosecution has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, it requires intervention of the impugned judgments rendered by the courts below. Further, the IO did not made any efforts to trace two row gold chain said to be worn by PW.1. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 in respect of Ex.P1 and so also evidence of PW.3 and 4 in respect of seizure mahazar at Ex.P3 and P4 and so also, spot mahazar at Ex.P2 is contradictory to each other. 8. It is contended that the Courts below without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective have passed the impugned judgments convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence. The same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and opposed to principles of law and therefore, are liable to be setaside and the petitioner/accused deserves for acquittal. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent – State contends that the prosecution by examining PW.1 to PW.9 and also by placing documentary evidence such as Exs.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 which clearly prove and establish that on 02.05.2007 at about 4.45 p.m. near the house of Channabasappa, Davangere, accused had stolen MO.1 – Golden Mangalya chain by using bike bearing Reg.No.KA17S6005 from the possession of PW.1 by spreading chilli powder on the face of PW.1 and sold the same to PW.3 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which was recovered by PW.7 being the IO, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused. Further, the first appellate Court also rightly upheld the judgment of the trial Court by reappreciating the entire evidence on record in a proper perspective. The IO, based on the voluntary statement of the accused had recovered MO.1 – golden mangalya chain from the possession of PW.3 and admittedly, MO.1 was sold by the accused to PW.3 and the same was identified by PW.1. PW.4 who happened to be the witness to the seizure mahazar at Ex.P3 was also present at the time of drawing seizure mahazar. Merely because PW.6 did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the entire case of the prosecution is required to be thrown out where the accused had snatched MO.1 – golden mangalya chain from the neck of PW.1 and so also, two row gold chain. Merely because PW.6 did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the entire case of the prosecution is required to be thrown out where the accused had snatched MO.1 – golden mangalya chain from the neck of PW.1 and so also, two row gold chain. But the said two row gold chain was not traced by the IO for the reasons that while the accused went away from the scene of crime in the motor bike along with MO.1, the two row gold chain was lost during the course of accused escaping from the scene of crime. The evidence of PW.1 in respect of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 remains unchallenged and unimpeachable. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of PW.1 and so also, the fulcrum of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar. Her evidence has been corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 in respect of MO1 – golden mangalya chain. Therefore, there is no occasion to disbelieve the theory of the prosecution as wherein PW.1 and 3 in respect of Ex.P1 – complaint and so also, seizure mahazar at Ex.P3 for having seized MO.1 is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. PWs.7 and 9 said to be investigating officers during the course of investigation that they conducted seizure mahazar at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and so also, spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and their evidence is in conformity with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Therefore, in this appeal it does not call for interference of the impugned judgments rendered by the courts below, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court and so also, the first Appellate Court which has reappreciated the entire evidence independently and has given findings. On all these grounds, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the criminal revision petition. 10. It is in this context of the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, learned HCGP for State it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of complaint as per Ex.P1. On all these grounds, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the criminal revision petition. 10. It is in this context of the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, learned HCGP for State it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of complaint as per Ex.P1. In her evidence she states that while she was returning from the house of her relatives on 02.05.2007 at about 4.45 p.m., near the house of Channabasappa of Davanagere, a person resembling the accused was waiting near the house of Channabasappa with his motor bike and he snatched the Goa design golden mangalya chain and another coffee seeds design chain from her neck by spreading chilli powder on her face and went away in the bike by keeping the golden chains in his pocket. In this regard she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. But as per the contents of Ex.P1, the incident took place on 02.05.2007 at about 4.50 p.m. and PW.1 lodged the complaint at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day and she has not lodged the complaint against the accused. Further in her examination in chief she states that she subscribed her signature in Ex.P2 as per Ex.P2(a) in the police station, therefore, she was treated as hostile to the extent of spot mahazar by the prosecution. Therefore, the theory as put forth by the prosecution does not repose any confidence that accused snatched MO.1 – golden mangalya chain by spreading chilli powder on her eyes. But the IO who conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 has not made any efforts to seize the contents of the chilli powder said to have been lying at the scene of crime. Therefore, the case of the prosecution founds to be doubtful. 11. PW.1 has also specifically stated in the cross examination that she did not see the accused, but identified the name of the accused as Mohan @ Mouneshi which was on the information given by the police. Further, she has stated that she cannot specifically state that person who snatched the golden mangalya chain and also two row gold chain by spreading chilli powder on her eyes and she do not know the contents of complaint as per Ex.P1 – complaint. 12. Further, she has stated that she cannot specifically state that person who snatched the golden mangalya chain and also two row gold chain by spreading chilli powder on her eyes and she do not know the contents of complaint as per Ex.P1 – complaint. 12. PW.3 – Indermal who is a proprietor of jewellary shop has specifically stated in his evidence that he purchased the golden mangalya chain from the accused and paid Rs.12,000/. Subsequent to purchase of the golden mangalya chain from the accused that on 14.08.2007, the police had come to his shop along with accused. The police had shown the accused to him and thereafter confirmed as to whether the person being accused sold the gold chain. Accordingly, he produced MO.1 – golden mangalya chain and the same was seized by drawing seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3. But in the cross-examination he has stated that he did not produce any document relating to purchase of MO.1 from the accused and also he did not produce any document to that effect before the police during the course of mahazar said to have been conducted by the IO as per Ex.P3. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 in respect of golden chain robbed by the accused and sold the said gold items to the jewellary shop of PW.3 and the same was seized by PW.7 in his presence under Ex.P3 are found to be doubtful. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution in respect of seizure of those golden items under Ex.P3 does not repose any confidence. 13. PW.4 is said to be the panch witness to seizure mahazar at Ex.P3. There is no dispute that Ex.P3 – Seizure mahazar conducted by PW.7 in the presence of PW.4 and he was subjected to examine to prove the fulcrum of mahazar. But in the cross-examination he has specifically stated that he do not know whether MO1 – golden mangalya chain is a new one and the same has not been used. Further, he do not know as to whether how many beads and black beads were there in the said MO.1 – golden mangalya chain. But the accused who asked the PW.3, proprietor of the gold jewellary shop and he produced MO.1 – golden mangalya chain. 14. PW.5 is said to be the panch witness to the seizure mahazar at Ex.P4 relating to seizure of motor bike which belonged to PW.6. 15. But the accused who asked the PW.3, proprietor of the gold jewellary shop and he produced MO.1 – golden mangalya chain. 14. PW.5 is said to be the panch witness to the seizure mahazar at Ex.P4 relating to seizure of motor bike which belonged to PW.6. 15. PW.6 – Nagaraja is the owner of motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA17S 6005. He did not withstood to the version of his statement at Ex.P5 said to have been recorded by the IO on 14.08.2007 for having seized the motor bike which belonged to him. This witness was subjected to cross-examination subsequent to treating him as hostile, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the prosecution to believe the contents of his statement at Ex.P5 said to have been recorded by the IO during the course of investigation. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5 are contradictory to the evidence of PWs.7 and 9 being the Investigating officers. 16. PWs.7 and 9 are said to be the IO and they have investigated the case and conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and seizure mahazars as per Exs.P3 and P4. But their evidence do not corroborate with the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1 who has subscribed her signature at Ex.P2. But she has specifically stated that she has subscribed her signature in police station. Therefore, the entire evidence of the prosecution, when viewed at a cursory glance, it reveals that the theory put forth by the prosecution do not repose confidence that the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. Mere because PW.3 said to be the proprietor of the jewellary shop who identified MO.1 – golden mangalya chain which was sold by the accused to him for a sum of Rs.12,000/- but unless there is corroborative evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, no credentiality could be given to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and so also, credentiality to the evidence of PW.3. But the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.7 and 9 are contradictory to each other and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence. But the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.7 and 9 are contradictory to each other and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence. The ingredients of Section 392 of IPC relating to robbery of MO.1 golden mangalya chain and two row gold chain by spreading chilli powder on the face of PW.1 and thereafter, snatching the gold items from her neck on relevant date. But the IO has not made any endeavour to record the statement of any person near the scene of crime as where the gold items came to be snatched by the accused. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.1 in respect of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar do not repose confidence that this mahazar conducted by PW.9 either at the scene of crime or at the police station as wherein PW.1 had subscribed her signature in the police station. She has turned hostile in respect of contents of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case and so also, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it does not repose confidence that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17. In this petition, if the impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below are not reappreciated or revisited, certainly there shall be greater injustice to the accused who is a grave man of the charge. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, it is opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by putting forth cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence. Hence, the accused deserves for acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/accused is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.3514/2007 dated 27/29.06.2009, confirmed by the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.76/2009 dated 03.12.2013 is hereby set-aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. If bail bond has been executed by the accused, the same stands cancelled. Further, if any fine amount is deposited by the accused, the same shall be returned to him, on proper identification.