Radhey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 14/1998
Petitioner: Radhey
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 14/1998
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK, DORAISWAMY RAJU & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 28, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 396 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Dacoity – Identification by the eye-witnesses – One of the accused identi-fied in test identification parade. Held that there was no in-firmity in convicting the accused.
(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Conviction of the Appellant under Section 396 recorded by the Sessions Judge has been upheld in appeal by the High Court. The conviction is based solely upon the identification made by the PWs. 2 and 3 corroborated by the earlier test identification parade, that was held on 27.8.1979. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have fully relied upon the identification made by the two witnesses, and did not find any infirmity with the earlier test identification parade conducted by the Magis-trate where two eye witnesses have identified the accused Appellant. On going through the impugned judgment, we see no infirmity in relying upon the aforesaid two witnesses, who have categori-cally identified the accused as one of the dacoits in the test identification parade, that was held on 27.8.1979, as well as in the Court during trial. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
1. Conviction of the Appellant under Section 396 recorded by the Sessions Judge has been upheld in appeal by the High Court. The conviction is based solely upon the identification made by the PWs. 2 and 3 corroborated by the earlier test identification parade, that was held on 27.8.1979. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have fully relied upon the identification made by the two witnesses, and did not find any infirmity with the earlier test identification parade conducted by the Magis-trate where two eye witnesses have identified the accused Appellant. On going through the impugned judgment, we see no infirmity in relying upon the aforesaid two witnesses, who have categori-cally identified the accused as one of the dacoits in the test identification parade, that was held on 27.8.1979, as well as in the Court during trial. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
