IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2017 OF 2004 DATE: 05-12-2011. Between: The State through Inspector of Police, A.D. Cell, C.I.D., Hyderabad, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. - - - Appellant. And 1. T. Shanker Reddy @ Shiva Reddy & Shiva Shiva Shanker Reddy. 2. V.V. Bhasker Rao @ Vijay @ Chaitanya. 3. Patla Prabhakar. 4. B. Komal Reddy @ Komal. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2017 OF 2004 JUDGMENT : The Respondents 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 were acquitted by the lower Court for the oﬀences under Sections 392, 397 and various sub-sections of Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Questioning the same, the State ﬁled this Appeal. At the outset it may be noted that there is no charge framed by the lower Court and the Accused did not face trial for any oﬀence under Section 411 or Section 412 I.P.C. Since the said oﬀences are not minor oﬀences relating to the oﬀences for which charges were framed, this Court cannot consider whether the prosecution has made out those oﬀences. Also, though the prosecution alleges that M.Os.1 and 2 were stated to have been seized from the persons with whom the accused pledged those ornaments, the prosecution did not examine those persons with whom the ornaments were pledged and documents relating to the said pledge. Even though some ﬁre arms were said to have been seized by PW.13 at the time of arrest of A-1 to A-3 in Ravi Lodge of Sattenapalli, the said seizure is not evidenced by any panchanama. No panchanama was prepared relating to seizure of ﬁre arms from any of the accused at Ravi Lodge, Sattenapalli. 2. Main oﬀences for which the accused was tried by the lower Court under Sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. P.Ws 1 to 3 are the victims who were travelling in A.P.S.R.T.C. bus at the time of oﬀence at about 08-40 p.m. The person who gave Ex.P-18 report to the Police was not examined, Ex.P-18 report was marked through PW.13, the Police Oﬃcer, which shows that 4 persons who participated in the robbery were wearing sweaters, monkey caps. No descriptive particulars of any of the culprits were mentioned in Ex.P-18 report. During the test identiﬁcation parade for the accused conducted by the Magistrate, PWs.1 and 2 did not identify any of the culprits/suspects. It is PW.3 who alone identiﬁed A-1, A-3 and A-4 in the test identiﬁcation parade before the Magistrate. The Magistrate who conducted test identiﬁcation parade was not examined in the lower Court. Test Identiﬁcation report of the Magistrate is also not marked during trial in the lower Court. The lower Court did not place reliance on identiﬁcation of A-1, A-3 and A-4 by PW.3 on the ground that in the statement recorded by the Magistrate prior to test identiﬁcation parade, PW.3 could give descriptive particulars relating to only 2 culprits and not three culprits whom she identiﬁed. The lower Court further observed that PW.3 did not state in her evidence about the culprits wearing monkey caps during the course of commission of oﬀences. In case the culprits were wearing monkey caps, it becomes more diﬃcult for the victims to identify such culprits after passage of time when they were mixed with other non suspects in test identiﬁcation parade. In these circumstances, the lower Court rightly did not place any reliance on evidence of PW.3 and also on her identiﬁcation of A-1, A-3 and A-4 in test identiﬁcation parade. I do not ﬁnd any valid or legal reasons to come to a diﬀerent conclusion from that of the lower Court in this Appeal. The lower Court rightly and for valid reasons recorded acquittal against A-1 to A-4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 05, 2011 Dsh. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2017 OF 2004 December 05, 2011 Dsh