Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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