IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2299 of 2004 DATE: 28.12.2011 Between: The State through Inspector of Police, AD Cell, CID, Hyderabad, rep. by Public Prosecutor …… Appellant And T.Shanker Reddy ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2299 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Questioning acquittal of the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 392 I.P.C by the lower Court, the State filed this appeal. This is a highway robbery which took place on 17.08.1988 in K.S.R.T.C bus going from Mantralayam to Mysore at about 09.15 P.M. after crossing Alur. Three persons who were travelling in the same bus intercepted the bus and committed robbery of valuables from the passengers. As per Ex.P-11 F.I.R, the culprits were wearing masks by way of monkey caps at the time of offence. After arrest of the accused, test identification parade was conducted by the Magistrate P.W-5 on 10.05.1995, after a period of 7 years of the offence. Out of the victims in the bus, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4. P.Ws 1 and 3 did not identify the accused. P.Ws 2 and 4 identified the accused. P.Ws 2 and 4 did not give any of descriptive particulars of the accused at the time of test identification parade, except age group of the accused. They did not depose before the Court about wearing of monkey caps by the culprits at the time of offence. In cross- examination, P.W-2 admitted that the culprits were wearing monkey caps and were holding knives. P.W-4 deposed in cross-examination that he does not remember whether he stated to the investigating officer about the culprits wearing monkey caps at the time of offence. He did not deny that fact. When the culprits were wearing monkey caps, in which event their eyes alone were visible to the victims, P.Ws 2 and 4 could not say as to how they could identify the accused after a period of 7 years. The lower Court in those circumstances rightly disbelieved identification of the accused by P.Ws 2 and 4. In the absence of proper identification of the accused by the victims, the offence under Section 392 I.P.C could not be made out by the prosecution. There are no valid grounds in this appeal to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. 2) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 28, 2011 ksh