TOORPATI MAJSAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Purushotham Reddy, the learned eounsel representing appellants-accused Nos, 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellants-accused Nos, 1 and 2 preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C. No. 746 of 1993, dated 15-11-1997, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapally.

(3.) Sri Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 would contend that from the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. it is highly doubtful whether the accused are the persons who had participated in the alleged offence on the fateful day, The learned eounsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 13, the Munsif Magistrate, and would submit that even in the test identification parade, it is stated that one witness Govardhanagiri Venkatamma had identified A-l but she was not examined, and the other witness Gadem Venkatamma P.W. 6, who was unable to identify, had been examined. Even certain admissions made in the evidence of P.W. 5 would definitely throw some light on the aspect of identification, and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellants- accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained.