HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2016 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 were acquitted by the lower Court of the oﬀences under Section 392 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Questioning acquittal, the State ﬁled this appeal. Insofar as the oﬀences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act are concerned, the lower Court observed that no ﬁrearms were recovered from any of the accused in this case/crime. Firearms were recovered from A1 to A3 in another crime, case relating to it was also tried by the lower Court separately. Therefore, the only relevant charge to be considered in this case is one under Section 392 IPC. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 out of whom P.W.1 is the driver and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the victims. This is a case of highway robbery in APSRTC bus. P.W.1 is the driver of that bus. During test identiﬁcation parade conducted by the Magistrate, P.W.1 did not identify any of A1 to A3. The Magistrate, who conducted test identiﬁcation parade is not examined and no proceedings relating to test identiﬁcation parade are marked during trial in the lower Court. The oﬀence in this case took place on 06.04.1992 at 2.45 a.m. The conductor who gave Ex.P3 report to the police after the incident, was not examined. On the basis of Ex.P3, Ex.P4 ﬁrst information report was issued by the police. Anywhere in Ex.P3 no descriptive particulars of the culprits are given. P.Ws.2 and 3 also did not give any descriptive particulars of the culprits/suspects to the Magistrate before proceeding for identiﬁcation of the accused. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not state before the lower Court as to how and on what basis they could identify the accused either before the Magistrate at the time of test identiﬁcation proceedings or before the lower Court during trial. During test identiﬁcation parade, P.W.2 identiﬁed A2 and another non-suspect, whereas P.W.3 identiﬁed A1 and two non- suspects. In those circumstances, the lower Court did not place any reliance on identiﬁcation of A2 and A1 by P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively either before the Magistrate or before the lower Court. The fact that P.Ws.2 and 3 did not give any descriptive particulars of the culprits before their identiﬁcation and that they also identiﬁed several other non-suspects, indicate that their identiﬁcation of A2 and A1 respectively is only a chance identiﬁcation and the lower Court rightly did not place any reliance on such identification. The additional Public Prosecutor attempted to contend that M.Os.1 and 2 stolen properties belonging to P.Ws.2 and 3 were identified by them and that the prosecution has proved recovery of those stolen properties from possession of A2 and A1 respectively by examining mediators and the Police Oﬃcer. During trial in the lower Court, no charge was framed against the accused either under Section 411 IPC or under Section 412 IPC for possession of stolen properties. The oﬀence thereunder is a distinct oﬀence from that of the oﬀence under Section 392 IPC. Therefore the case cannot be considered under Section 411 IPC. There are no grounds either on facts or on law to interfere with ﬁnding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 5th December 2011 Rns