IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 14-07-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1309 of 2004 Between: Sreenu Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1309 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner(A.3) challenging judgment dated 24.06.2004 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2003, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.910 of 1992 dated 10.11.2003 by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East and North at R.R.District, was confirmed against him and A.2 in the case. The case of the prosecution is as follows: on 29.07.1992 A.1 to A.4 in the case entered the house of P.W.1-Yadagiri at about 3.30 a.m. and robbed P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2 by name Saraswathi of gold ornaments and also cash of Rs.19,000/- at the point of knife and further threatening to kill their seven months child and later they went away from the house on the scooter of P.W.1. On a report given by P.W.1, the case was registered in Crime No.385 of 1992 under Section 392 IPC and the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned took up and conducted the investigation of the case. Further after the completion of the investigation of the case, the corresponding charge sheet was filed. The case against A.4 was separated and numbered as C.C.No.996 of 1997. The petitioner (A.3) along with the other accused i.e. A.1 & A.2 in the case was tried for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. In support of the prosecution case, the de-facto complainant and his wife were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2, panch witnesses were examined as P.Ws.3 to 5 and the investigating officer in the case was examined as P.W.6 and Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os 1 to 7 were marked. A.1 to A.3 denied the incriminating evidence against them in their 313 Cr.P.C examination but then reported no defence evidence on their behalf. After hearing both the sides and basing on the evidence available on record, A.1 to A.3 were found guilty of committing the offence and were accordingly convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each whereas aggrieved by the same, A.2 and A.3 preferred the Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2003 whereby the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and aggrieved by that, the petitioner(A.3) has preferred the present criminal revision case. Heard. For the sake of convenience, herein afterwards, the revision petitioner is referred to as A.3. The points that arise for determination in this revision are: 1. Whether the prosecution placed satisfactory evidence with regards to establishing the charge under Section 392 IPC? 2. Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are tenable or not and A.3 is entitled for acquittal? POINTS: It is the contention of learned counsel for A.3 that the prosecution should have conducted identification parade for the identification of A.3 by the concerned witnesses but it was not done and further the appellate Court, without giving proper reasons, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and therefore the same are to be set aside. I have gone through the record. It is the testimony of P.W.1-J.Yadagiri (de-facto complainant) that on 29.07.1992 at about 3.30 p.m. while he was sleeping in his house some unknown offenders entered the house from the rear door of it and three of them caught hold of him while one of them was standing outside and at the point of knife he (P.W.1) gave the keys of the almyrah of the house following which the three persons opened the almyrah and collected four gold bangles, two gold kankanalu, four gold finger rings, six gold chains and gold locket along with some loose pearls and also collected cash of Rs.19,000/- and went away and his daughter and wife were also present at that time. P.W.2-Saraswathi who is the wife of P.W.1 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.6 the investigating officer deposed that he arrested A.3 and A.4 and at their instance the property concerned in the case and also properties concerned in some other cases were recovered which were marked as M.Os.1 to 7 whereas P.Ws.3 to 5 examined as concerned mediators did not support the prosecution version. Further basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 trial Court convicted A.1 to A.3 and imposed the sentences against them as already referred, following which the appeal was preferred by A.2 & A.3 which was dismissed, basing on which the present revision has been preferred. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 amply establishes that the offence lasted for long time. It is a well-established principle of law that in such circumstances, no identification parade is to be conducted. In other words, conducting of test identification parade is necessary if the so-called victims got short time to remember the identities of the culprits, which is not the case here. Further there is absolutely no reason to believe that a false report was given and everything was cooked up in this case. It must be that as somebody committed robbery including collecting and taking away the gold ornaments of P.Ws.1 and 2 from their house, the first of them gave the report to the police. P.W.1 identified the accused as the culprits and P.Ws.1 & 2 also identified the ornaments produced by the police as their own before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is accepted and it proves the offence and recovery from the possession of the accused. Further P.W.6 deposed about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the properties. His evidence is to be given lot of credibility in view of the fact that the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 about the robbery and identification of the ornaments is quite acceptable. On the other hand P.Ws.3 to 5 examined as mediators for the arrest and seizure turned as hostile witnesses. In the circumstances of the case it must be that having been won over by the accused they gave false evidence. Therefore for foregoing reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and also the findings of the appellate Court in the matter. Even though it is claimed that in the appeal judgment proper reasons are not given, the overall circumstances of the case can be taken into consideration to arrive at right decision in the case. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below. Further with regards to the question of sentence, it is important that this is a case of 1992 and ever since A.3 has been attending before various Courts in connection with this case and consequently faced trial and also faced the ordeal of the imposition of conviction and sentences during which he must have incurred lot of expenditure. Examining the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to reduce the sentence. Accordingly the sentence imposed against the petitioner (A.3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and the period of detention already undergone by him shall be given as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. while retaining the fine clause. The points are answered accordingly. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above modification. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 14th July, 2011 VJL