PW 6, Circles Inspector of Police, deposed that during the course of investigation, he arrested the Accused on 22.5.1999 and seized the property pertaining to the crime s in presence of the mediator and staff and on their confession, he also seized some other properties concerned to the other Cases in presence of mediators under a cover of detailed Mahazars.

The village Administrative Officer conducted identification parade relating to the property and P W 5 conducted identification parade relating to the Accused. As can be seen from the material available on record, two witnesses PW 2 and 3,in relation to the alleged recovery turned hostile.

In Wakil Singh v State of Bihar, the Apex Court while dealing with appreciation of evidence gave any description of the dacoit in their statements or in oral evidence,nor gave any identification marks, such as statute of Accused or whether they were fat or thin or of fair colour or back, Colour and only one witnesses identified dacoits form the test identification parades,held that conviction can not be based only on the identification of the single witnesses.

In Sampat Tatyada Shinde v/s State of Maharashtra while dealing with the evidentiary value of the identification parade,the Apex court held " in case of test identification parade is admissible u/s 9 of the Evidence Act, it is best supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborating the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court recording identification of the Accused as the doer of the criminal act.

The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by it self, has no independent value. Nor is test identification parade, by it self, has no independent value. Nor is test identification parade, by it self the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness recording identification of the Accused in court,as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity of the culprit can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also.

In the light of the infirmities recorded in the TI parade by the Ld IInd Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tirupathi, AP High court was of the considered opinion that except the testimony of PW 1, absolutely there was no evidence relating to recovery, since P.W s 2 and 3 turned hostile. Hence the order of Acquittal recorded by the Ld Magistrate in the Facts narrated above, was well justified and Warrant no interference by the AP High court. accordingly appeal was hereby dismissed.