Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High 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