The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to legal procedures in criminal cases, including promptly recording statements, holding proper identification parades, and ensuring investigating officers and magistrates have a sound understanding of criminal law and procedures.

A.S. Pachhapure, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Madhugiri.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:

PW. 1 - K.V. Thimmappa, the Head Master of the Primary School, Rolla Centre and PW. 2 - P.V. Challapathi, the Head Master of Rathnagiri Primary School had been to SBI, Madakasira on TVS moped and at 10.30 a.m. having drawn the money from the bank were retuning on the aforesaid moped with a total sum of Rs. 6,80,462/- bifurcated in two bags. When, they were near Lakshmipura of Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh Border, three persons came on a motorbike from their behind and hit the moped. As a result, Thimmappa & Challapathi fell down and the rider of the motorbike forcibly snatched the bag from PW. 1 - Thimmappa and another snatched the bag from PW. 2 - Chalapathi. At that time, some cash fell down to the ground. The persons who robbed the same were speaking Telugu and they removed the plug wire of the moped of the victims and fled away from the spot. PW. 2 - Challapathi collected the cash which had fallen. In the course of the aforesaid incident, the spectacles were broken. PW. 1 and PW. 2 tried to start their vehicle but it did not. Hence, they went to Madakasira circle and reached the police station in a tempo. A case in Crime No. 109/2005 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of Cr.P.C.

The investigation was taken up. The spot mahazar - Ex. P2 was held in the presence of the attesting witnesses. The articles i.e., Mos. 1 to 6 were seized. It is on 13.12.2005, additional statement of PW. 1 and statement of PW. 2 were recorded and in the said statement, they revealed the motorbike number as KA-06-S-9878 and also the fact that the incident was at the instance of five persons with the involvement of two bikes. During the investigation, it revealed that PW. 8 - Sriramulu was the owner of motorbike and he revealed the names of accused Nos. 1 to 4 as the persons who took the motorbike on 01.12.2005. On 14.12.2005, PW. 18 on credible information that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were traveling from Bangalore to Dharmavaram, chased them at N.S. Gate at National Highway No. 7 on the motorbike bearing registration No. KA-06-S-9878. They were apprehended. Later, accused No. 5 was arrested on 29.12.2005.

In the course of the investigation, accused No. 1 was arrested. The amount robbed was seized under the mahazar and as PW. 1 and PW. 2 had sustained injuries, they were treated by a doctor and injury certificates were collected, statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 392 of Cr.P.C.

In the trial against the appellants, the prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW. 18 and got marked Exs. P1 to P35 and Mos. 1 to 35. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court heard the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record convicted the appellants (accused Nos. 1 to 3) for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and ordered them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have approached this Court in this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that identity of the accused is not proved as the very procedure adopted in holding the Identification Parade was followed and further there is abnormal and unusual delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses. Therefore, he submits that the Court below was not justified in granting