was wearing the gold chain which was snatched, had given any statement anywhere that she can identify the accused if she sees him again. He states all these things are stated by her only in her evidence as PW2. Admittedly, the theft occurred at 1.00 o'clock in the night when PW2 and others were fast asleep. The case is that the chain was snatched and on waking up, PW2 saw the petitioner in the light of a tube light, which was on outside the room, which is not believable is the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Apart from that, according to the counsel for the petitioner, if she had actually seen the thief, she would definitely have told it to her husband, who gave Ext.P1 FI statement and the same would have found a place in Ext.P1 FI statement, which the FI statement does not contain. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, there is no reliable evidence that the petitioner is the person who committed the theft of the gold chain from the neck of PW2 which is stated to have been recovered as an ingot from the Sivaram Jewellery. As such, the Lower Courts could not have validly convicted the petitioner is the contention raised.
