10.In this case, on a perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that except PWs 1 and 2 who had seen the first accused snatching the chain and running away, there is no other evidence identifying the third accused either before Court or by way of an identification parade. There is no evidence except for PWs 1 and 2 and the observation mahazar witnesses and PW5 police patrol Sub Inspector and PW6 the Special Sub Inspector, who registered the FIR, examined in this case. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence to prove the charge under Section 34 IPC or even the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence. Even PW5 in his cross examination has admitted that he did not remember as to who drove the auto or who was the co-passenger in the auto. Therefore, while converting the offence under Section 379 IPC which is only removing the valuable from the possession of the particular person, which admittedly is only done by the first accused in this case, the lower appellate Court omitted to consider that there was no evidence for the involvement of the present petitioner/A3 is concerned. Unless and otherwise a common intention or abetting is proved in the manner known to law, the petitioner before this Court could not be convicted for the alleged offence committed by the first accused. Though Section 34 is charged, absolutely there is no iota of evidence as to what was the relationship between A1, A2 and A3 and what was the common intention, how they planned etc. It is categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010 10 SCC 259) as to the ingredients of Section 34 IPC and how it is to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, unless the common intention is proved, there is no iota of evidence to connect A3 to the scene of occurrence and therefore, I am of the view that the conviction
