IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.497 OF 2003 Between: V. Brahma Chary ..... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.2 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 20.12.2002, in Crl.A.No.35 of 1998, on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year as imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangaon, vide judgment, dated 24.03.1998, in C.C.No.254 of 1991, were confirmed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On the intervening night of 24/25.07.1991 at about 1.30 a.m., while P.Ws.1 & 2, who are husband and wife, were sleeping in their house, petitioner herein along with two others knocked the door and when P.W.1 opened the door, the petitioner herein along with two others entered into their house and robbed the gold Pustela Tadu, which is marked as M.O.1, from the person of P.W.2. During the course of investigation, P.W.6-Investigating Officer arrested the Accused No.1 and Petitioner/Accused No.2 and recovered the stolen property at the instance of the petitioner herein in pursuance of the disclosure statement given by the petitioner herein. The Accused No.1 and Petitioner/Accused No.2 were identified as the assailants who participated in the commission of offence through the witnesses in the Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.5-Munsif Magistrate. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charge under Section 384 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. They denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, found the Petitioner/Accused No.2 guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that there was delay of two days in filing Ex.P1-complaint; that the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court is valueless; that the accused were shown prior to the Test Identification Parade to the witnesses, and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. 9. On the other hand, the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, both the Courts rightly convicted the accused, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Section 384 I.P.C. prescribes punishment for Extortion. Section 383 I.P.C. deals with Extortion, which reads as follows: “Extortion: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.” 11. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, or illegal, or improper, normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, who are the husband and wife, would go to show that while they were sleeping, the present petitioner herein along with two others, knocked the door and when P.W.1 opened the door, they committed theft of M.O.1-Gold Pustela Tadu from the person of P.W.2. 13. No doubt, there was delay of two days in lodging Ex.P1-complaint. But at the same time, there is no other reason for P.Ws.1 & 2 to foist a false case of this nature against the petitioner herein. At the time of incident, P.Ws.1 & 2 were sleeping inside the house. On hearing the knocking sound of the door, P.W.1 woke up and opened the door. At that time, the petitioner herein along with two others committed theft of M.O.1- Gold Pustela Tadu. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by P.W.1. The earliest version as stated in Ex.P1 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. The petitioner herein and two others were present in the house of P.Ws.1 & 2 for quite a considerable time. Therefore, the physical features of the petitioner herein must have been imprinted in the mind of P.W.1, which enabled him to identify the petitioner herein in the Test Identification Parade. The said identification is not shown to be improbable. 14. P.W.5-Munsif Magistrate conducted the Test Identification Parade. Normally, the Test Identification Parade will be conducted to test the memory of the witness with regard to the physical features and identity of the accused participated in the commission of offence. Though the Test Identification Proceedings are not substantive piece of evidence, but at the same time, it can be used to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. P.W.2 did not identify the petitioner herein whereas P.W.1 identified the petitioner herein in the Test Identification Parade. 15. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 would go to show that the petitioner herein along with two others trespassed into their house and committed theft of M.O.1-Gold Pustela Tadu. Therefore, there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. The police arrested the accused and in pursuance of their confessional statements, they seized M.O.1-Gold Pustela Tadu which was identified by P.Ws.1 & 2 as belonging to them. Even the accused did not claim that the property belonging to them. 16. No doubt, P.Ws.3 & 4 who were the Mediators for the arrest of the petitioner herein and recovery of M.O.1 in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the petitioner herein did not support the case of the prosecution, but the evidence of P.W.6, who is the Investigating Officer, would go to show that in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the petitioner herein, M.O.1-Gold Pustela Tadu was seized at the instance of Accused No.1. Simply because the Mediators for the arrest and seizure of M.O.1-Gold Pustela Tadu did not support the case of the prosecution, that does not mean the evidence of P.W.6-Investigating Officer has to be disbelieved on that ground. 17. There is no law that the evidence of an Investigating Officer has to be disbelieved on the ground that he was a Police Officer incharge of the case. The evidence of the Police Official Officer has to be appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witness. If the evidence of the Investigating Officer suffers from any serious infirmities and it cannot be acted upon, then only his evidence can be rejected. There are no infirmities elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.6-Investigating Officer to infer that he is not a witness of truth. Therefore, the trial Court and Appellate Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found Petitioner/Accused No.2 guilty and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 20.12.2002, in Crl.A.No.35 of 1998, on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 1st December, 2009. KL