HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1895 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014 Between:
Manupati Vijaya @Vijayamma.
And:
..Petitioner.
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1895 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is filed against judgment dated 14-11- 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram whereunder judgment dated 30-8-2005 in C.C.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 11-1-2005, all the accused went to the house- cum-cloth shop of P.W.1 and asked her to show them some sarees on the pretext of purchasing. Accordingly, P.W.1 placed some sarees before the accused and went inside the house to attend some household work and when she came back, she found that the accused were missing and when she counted the sarees, she noticed that 42 sarees worth about Rs.70,000/- were taken away by the three accused persons and on a report from P.W.1, police caught hold of the accused on the same day around 12.45 P.M., and recovered all the 42 sarees and thereby, the accused committed offence under Section 380 I.P.C. During trial, four witnesses are examined and five documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found all the accused guilty for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2005 to the court of Sessions and the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the judgment of trial court and judgment of appellate court, first accused preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main objection of the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner and others are strangers to P.Ws.1 to 3 and the Investigating Officer has not conducted any test identification parade and without that directly identifying the accused at the time of trial is illegal and both the courts erred in not considering this aspect. The other contention of the revision petitioner is that as per the evidence of mediators, fourteen sarees are seized from each of the accused at the time of their arrest but the remand report and the mediators’ report are contra to the same according to which, thirteen sarees are recovered from one accused, fourteen sarees from another accused and fifteen sarees from the third accused and this discrepancy is not considered by the courts below.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the discrepancy pointed out is very negligible. He further submitted that the fact that sarees belonging to P.W.1 are recovered from the possession of revision petitioner and others at the time of their arrest therefore, quantum from each accused makes no difference. He further submitted that identification parade is not required in all case and when the culprits are apprehended within hours from the date of commission of offence and when the witnesses duly identified by them during trial, the objection regarding identification parade cannot be sustained. He further submitted the very same objection is raised before the trial court and appellate court and both the courts rejected the objection with valid reasons.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, P.W.1 is running a cloth shop at her residence and on 11-1-2005, the revision petitioner and two others approached her on the pretext of purchasing sarees. According to P.W.1, this happened at about 9 A.M., and she lodged a complaint with the police at 9.30 A.M. on the same day. Police arrested the accused with the property at 1-00 P.M. One of the objections of the revision petitioner is that P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed in their evidence that police seized fourteen sarees from each of the accused at the time of their arrest but the remand report and other documents are contrary to the said statement. According to revision petitioner, the remand report disclosed that thirteen sarees were recovered from one accused, fourteen sarees were recovered from another accused and 15 sarees from third accused and this discrepancy is material in nature. But as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the number of sarees seized from each accused is not very material when the total sarees seized from three accused tallies with the total that were lost from the shop of P.W.1. Whether it is thirteen sarees or fourteen sarees makes no difference when the fact remains that the sarees that were lost from the shop of P.W.1 were recovered from the possession of accused i.e., revision petitioner herein and two others. So, the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to the discrepancy pointed out cannot be sustained and both courts rightly negatived this plea.
8. The next objection of the revision petitioner is that accused persons are strangers and Investigating Officer has not conducted any identification parade and therefore, identifying the accused during trial cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, this objection is raised before the trial court and appellate court in both the courts after considering the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner on this point both the courts over ruled the objection holding that failure to hold identification parade would not dilute the case of prosecution. Here, it is not the case of revision petitioner that the revision petitioner and others are implicated in the case due to some enmity with the prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot have any motive to speak falsehood against the accused they being strangers. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that the revision petitioner and other accused are the same persons who came to her shop during morning hours on 11-1-2005 on the pretext of purchasing sarees and that she placed some sarees before them for selection and when she went inside the house to attend some household work namely arranging lunch boxes to the school going children and when she came out, she found the customers missing with forty two sarees. On her report, police commenced investigation and recovered all the forty two sarees from the revision petitioner and other accused persons within four hours from the commission of offence.
9. Even the trial commenced within three months and P.W.1 i.e., victim is examined on 22-3-2005 which is exactly after two months twelve days after the incident. Considering these aspects, both the courts observed that identification parade in this case is not very much essential. I do not find anything wrong in making such observation. When the trial could take place within three months of the incident, the memory of the victim and the witnesses would be fresh and therefore, identifying the culprits during trial cannot be held as wrong. Both the trial court and appellate court have rightly considered the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion. Both the courts have correctly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and correctly convicted the revision petitioner and other accused. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or any illegality in arriving at such findings.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
11. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-1-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1895 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014.