State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sayyaad Siraj Mohammed & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1030-1031 of 2003
[From the Judgement and Order dated 14.04.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1415/1997 and 1698/1997]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 14.04.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1415/1997 and 1698/1997]
Petitioner: State of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent: Sayyaad Siraj Mohammed & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1030-1031 of 2003
[From the Judgement and Order dated 14.04.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1415/1997 and 1698/1997]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 14.04.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1415/1997 and 1698/1997]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 15, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr. T.V. George, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr. T.V. George, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
TIP – Accused shown to PW.1 before identification. Held, no purpose to hold identification parade. High Court’s direction of acquittal calls for no interference.
TIP – Accused shown to PW.1 before identification. Held, no purpose to hold identification parade. High Court’s direction of acquittal calls for no interference.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents. The High Court has noted that before the test identification parade was conducted on 20.3.1991, the witness (PW1) was taken to the central jail where the accused persons were shown to him. That being so, there was really no purpose in holding test identification parade. The High Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution version and directed acquittal of the respondents. In any event, this is a possible view and therefore no interference is called for. The appeals fail. The bail bonds executed for giving effect to the order of bail dated 13.10.2003 shall stand discharged.
2. The appeals are dismissed.
**********
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents. The High Court has noted that before the test identification parade was conducted on 20.3.1991, the witness (PW1) was taken to the central jail where the accused persons were shown to him. That being so, there was really no purpose in holding test identification parade. The High Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution version and directed acquittal of the respondents. In any event, this is a possible view and therefore no interference is called for. The appeals fail. The bail bonds executed for giving effect to the order of bail dated 13.10.2003 shall stand discharged.
2. The appeals are dismissed.
**********
