M A SATTAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the following facts:

(2.) The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the evidence of 11 witnesses and several other pieces of incriminating evidence. The trial court held that PW 1 and PW 4, Mohd. Hussain and Sathi Reddy respectively were eye witnesses to the incident as the latter too had been walking just ahead of the deceased at the time of the attack. The Court observed that the test identification parade had been conducted wherein PW 1 had identified four of the accused i.e. A-4 to A-7 whereas PW 4 had identified only two of them i.e. A-4 and A-7 in Court PW 1 had identified only A-3 to A-6 meaning thereby that A-3 had been identified for the first time in court and that A-7 who had been identified at the time of the test identification parade had not been identified in the court. The Court also observed that PW 4 had identified only A-4 and A-7 at the test identification parade but in the witness box he had identified A-4 to A-7 as the culprits. The trial court accordingly held that the evidence as to the involvement of A-3 to A-7 was doubtful and that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect A-1 and A-2 to the offence. The trial court accordingly ordered that:

(3.) Two appeals were thereafter taken to the High Court by the three convicted accused. The court opined that both the eye witnesses were consistent insofar as the involvement of A- 4 was concerned. The court then held that insofar as A-5 and A-6 were concerned, the eye witnesses account at the test identification parade did incriminate them and PW 1 had asserted that he had been able to see the accused as he had been wearing spectacles at the time when the chilly powder had been thrown in his face. The court also held that there was no reason whatsoever to disregard the test identification parade proceedings insofar as these accused were concerned, as they had been conducted in the presence of a Magistrate and the suggestion by the defence that the accused had been shown to the eye witnesses before the parade could not be believed. It was also found that the presence of the two witnesses at the spot at the relevant time had to be accepted, more particularly as PW 4 had no substantial connection with either of the parties and was truly an independent witnesses. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial court was maintained. It is in these circumstances that the present appeals are before us by way of special leave.