The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or inconsistencies in testimony undermine conviction.

JUDGMENT :

K.SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed in S.C.No.128 of 2023 by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities Against the Women cum I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2018 at about 2:00 a.m., five or more persons, including the accused, committed a dacoity at the house of the de facto complainant (PW1) situated at Venkateshwara Colony, Narsapur. The accused allegedly broke open the house doors, trespassed into the house, threatened the inmates with deadly weapons such as knives and an axe, and forcibly robbed substantial quantities of gold and silver ornaments and cash belonging to PW1, his wife (PW2), sister (PW3), and mother. After committing the offence, the accused tied the victims, bolted the house from outside, and fled with the booty. PW1 lodged a complaint on the morning of 08.08.2018, leading to registration of the crime under Section 395 IPC .

3. During investigation, the accused were apprehended in connection with another crime, confessional statements were recorded, stolen property was recovered, and a Test Identification Parade was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 who are appellants herein, (A2 and A4 being absconding/split up), and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, it was contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 (eye-witnesses/injured witnesses) clearly established the occurrence of dacoity and the participation of the accused. Their testimony was corroborated by PW4 (neighbour), the scene of offence panchanama, recovery of stolen property, and the Test Identification Parade conducted by a Judicial Magistrate. It was argued that minor discrepancies, if any, did not go to the root of the prosecution case and that all essential ingredients of Sections 390 , 391 and 395 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. In defence, it was contended that the prosecution case suffered from inconsistencies, delay and procedural irregularities. It was contended that the accused were allegedly shown to the witnesses prior to the Test Identification Parade, thereby vitiating the identification process. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that the conviction based on a tainted identification parade was unsustainable. It was further argued that there was no reliable evidence to conclusively connect the accused with the alleged offence.

6. Upon careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 were natural, consistent, and trustworthy, and inspired confidence. Their version regarding the manner of commission of the offence, use of deadly weapons, and the number of offenders clearly established the offence of dacoity. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 corroborated the occurrence and condition of the scene of offence.

7. The trial Court examined the objections relating to the Test Identification Parade and found that the parade was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate (PW8) following due procedure. The bald allegation of the accused that they were shown to the witnesses earlier was held to be insufficient, especially in the absence of specific details. The trial Court held that vague objections do not invalidate the identification proceedings. The recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, proved through panch witnesses and investigating officers, further strengthened the prosecution case. Hence, it concluded that all the essential ingredi