THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.37 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein and five others were tried as accused in S.C.No.162 of 2000 by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 22 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.50 and M.Os.1 to 8. Having analysed the said evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted all of them and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week. Questioning the said judgment dated 23.11.2001 the petitioner, who was arrayed as third accused in the said Sessions Case preferred Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2002 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, by his judgment dated 10.10.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.07.1998 at 11.00 PM some unknown offenders forcibly entered into the house of P.W.1, threatened the inmates, demanded Rs.50,000/- and snatched gold articles from them. Later they took L.W.2 to the house of P.W.2, got opened the door and took away gold ornaments weighing about 3 tolas from his wife forcibly. In that connection a case in Cr.No.52 of 1998 was registered on 11.07.1998 in the Yacharam Police Station and was investigated into. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 23.06.1998 at 1.30 AM some unknown offenders went to the house of P.W.6 while he was sleeping in the pial of his house and introduced themselves as ‘Annalu’ and forcibly gained entry into his house and by pointing out knives to the inmates they snatched gold ornaments weighing total 6 tolas from them and decamped with the booty. In that connection a case in Cr.No.89 of 1998 was registered in Ibrahimpatnam Police station and investigated into. During the course of investigation the petitioner herein was apprehended on 16.09.1998 and on interrogation he admitted the offence in the presence of mediators P.Ws.12 and 14 and the property concerned with Cr.No.89 of 1998 was recovered from his possession. Subsequently the other accused were also apprehended on 22.09.1998 and on interrogation they also admitted the offence and part of the stolen property was also recovered from them. A test identification parade was also conducted wherein the complainants have identified the accused. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed in both the crimes. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this court stating that during the course of the test identification parade the witnesses have not identified the petitioner herein and it is only after repeated showings, the said witnesses could identify the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is only on suspicion the petitioner is implicated in the case on hand. 5 In the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the record. The judicial officer who conducted test identification parade was examined as P.W.5. According to his evidence, he conducted test identification parade on 09.10.1998 and during the course of the said parade P.W.6 identified A.1, A.3, A.4 and A.5 in the first instance and again he identified A.1, A3 and A.4. It is his further evidence that P.W.7 and 8 also identified A.1, A.3 to A.6. The other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.9 and 10 also identified the other accused including the petitioner. The alleged offences took place on 23.06.1998 and 10.07.1998 and the said test identification parade was conducted on 17.10.1998 i.e. within a period of three months and in the said parade, in the presence of a judicial officer, the petitioner herein was identified by all the witnesses. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution witnesses have not identified the petitioner. 6 Further, two courts have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence punishable under section 395 of IPC and in my considered view, the said finding arrived at by the courts below is reasonable. Hence I see no merits in this revision. 7 However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offences took place in the year 1998 and the petitioner was already in jail for a considerable period of time, the said sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to that of two years. 8 Except the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 07.12.2010 Kvsn