THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1532 of 2008 Date: 30-10-2009 Between: Syed Hussain @ Hassan Baraba. .. Petitioner/Appellant And The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1532 OF 2008 ORDER: This Revision has been filed challenging the Judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2008, dated 25-08-2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the Judgment in C.C. No.275 of 2007 dated 28- 05-2008. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner herein will be referred as accused for the sake of convenience. The prosecution case is Md. Hasmath Ali (PW.2) is running a jewellery shop near Madina Masjid, Banu Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. On 22-01-2007 about 09-00 p.m. after collecting an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) he was returning to home on his motor cycle. When he reached near Railway bridge, Yakuthpura, A-1 and A-2 alleged to have followed him on another motor cycle, A-1 who was the pillion rider got down from the motor cycle and threatened PW.2 to hand over the plastic cover containing cash and when PW.2 resisted to hand over the cash bag, A-1 caused injury on his stomach and snatched away Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only). In the meanwhile, PW.1 G. Dayanand came to the rescue of PW.2 and tried to apprehend A-2, then A-2 caused injuries to PW.1 and ran away leaving the motor cycle at the spot. Since A-1 was absconding, the case against A-1 was separated. A-2 alone faced the trial. A charge under Section 394 I.P.C. was framed against A-2, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.19 and MOs. 1 to 8 were marked. The stand of the accused was total denial. However, he did not adduce any evidence on his behalf in defence. The trial Court believed the prosecution case and found A-2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the same, he filed the appeal. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, dismissed the said appeal vide impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below did not consider the evidence in proper perspective. It is also his submission that the petitioner was shown to the witnesses before conducting identification parade and this fact was not taken into consideration in the case below. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW.2 has identified the petitioner herein in test identification parade and there is recovery of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) from the petitioner and that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and there is no need to interfere with the same. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner under Section 394 I.P.C.? In this case, the assailants were not known to the injured witnesses PWs 1 and 2. Therefore, the identification of the petitioner/accused becomes an important issue. Exs.P5 and P7 are the Test Identification Parade proceedings prepared by PW.6. PW.6 is the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who conducted Test Identification Parade. The evidence on record shows that PW.2 identified the petitioner (A-2) in the Test Identification Parade on 11-04-2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was shown to the police before holding Test Identification Parade. This point was elaborately considered by the appellate Court and the appellate Court has given valid reasons for accepting the evidence of PW.2. The first appellate Court held that the question of A-1 and A-2 being shown at a time to PW.1 would not arise because A-1 and A-2 were never in police custody during the same time after the evidence. Moreover If at all A-1 and A-2 were shown to PWs. 1 and 2, PWs. 1 and 2 would not have failed to identify both the accused in both the Test Identification Parades conducted by PW.6. In fact, PW.1 identified only A-1 and he did not identify A-2. Similarly, PW.2 identified A-2 and he did not identify A-1. Therefore, there appears to be no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused were shown to the witnesses before holding Test Identification Parade. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and there is no need to interfere with the same. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgments of the Courts below. The findings are not perverse. Therefore, no interference is required. However, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be considered that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12-03-2007 and his submission that the petitioner has almost completed three years of imprisonment if the pre trial custody is taken into consideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the petitioner i.e., 22 years at the time of trial, I consider Just and reasonable to reduce the sentence to a period of three years. In the result, the revision is allowed in part, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. is confirmed but however, the sentence is modified to a period of three years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The period already undergone by him shall be given set off. Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the Revision stands dismissed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 30-10-2009. DSH