Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

No Grounds to Disbelieve Test Identification Parade" – High Court Upholds Conviction in Bicycle Theft Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No. 850 of 2009, upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for bicycle theft. The court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005, confirming their conviction and sentence.

The legal point in focus was the petitioners' challenge to their conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property, specifically bicycles. The contention revolved around the conduct and validity of the Test Identification Parade and whether the procedures followed were in line with the law.

The case stemmed from multiple incidents of bicycle thefts in Proddatur. Following their arrest, the petitioners (A.1 and A.2) were found in possession of the stolen bicycles, which were identified by the original owners in a Test Identification Parade. The issue raised was whether the Test Identification Parade was conducted lawfully and whether the evidence presented was credible and sufficient for conviction.

The court meticulously assessed the testimony of witnesses (PW1 to PW6), who confirmed the theft of their bicycles. PW7, who conducted the Test Identification Parade, and PW10, the investigating officer, provided substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's case. Despite one mediator turning hostile (PW8), another mediator (PW9) corroborated the prosecution's case.

The court noted, "It is very difficult to accept such a contention [regarding the conduct of Test Identification Parade]," emphasizing the credibility of the parade and the lack of valid reasons to disbelieve the procedure followed. The court affirmed that both the trial court and the appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence on record.

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No. 850 of 2009, confirming the judgment dated 13.05.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005. The petitioners' conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property (bicycles) was upheld.

Date of Decision: 1st March 2024.

Diyā Chandrayudu & Another v. State of A.P.

 

Latest Legal News