P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) STATE had preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, dated 27-2-2003. in R. C. No. 370 of 1999. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 1, in fact, had identified the accused and on the mere fact that the recovery was not proved since P. Ws. 2 and 3 turned hostile, an acquittal cannot be recorded and hence, it is a fit case for admission. The Inspector of Police, Tirupathi filed a charge-sheet against A-1 and A-2 in Crime no. 193 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of the Indian penal Code (for short ipc ). ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 10-5-1999 at about 7. 30 p. m. at State Bank of India Staff Training Centre, Tirupathi, two unknown persons came on a Luna Super vehicle and while the defacto complainant P. W. 1 was proceeding to her house, the pillion rider (A-2) of the vehicle snatched a Gold chain weighing about 24 grams, worth about rs. 9,600/-, from the neck of the complainant and escaped with the booty and on her report, Crime No. 193 of 99 was registered under Section 379 of IPC and during the course of Investigation, on 20-5-99 at about 3. 00 p. m. at Annamacharya Traffic Island, near over bridge, Tirupathl, the accused were arrested and the stolen chain was recovered from the possession of A-2 under a cover of mahazar attested by the mediators. ( 3 ) IT is also the further case of the prosecution that the defacto-complainant-P. W. 1 Identified her stolen gold chain in the test identification parade of the property and she also identified the accused in the test identification parade of the accused. Hence, A-l and A-2 are liable for punishment under section 379 or 411 of I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. P-1 to 6. P. W. 1-defactor-complainant deposed that on 10-5-99 at about 7. 00 p. m. she had gone to provision shop at Khadi colony circle to purchase provisions and when she was at State Bank of india Staff Training Centre, at about 7. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. P-1 to 6. P. W. 1-defactor-complainant deposed that on 10-5-99 at about 7. 00 p. m. she had gone to provision shop at Khadi colony circle to purchase provisions and when she was at State Bank of india Staff Training Centre, at about 7. 30 p. m. , two persons came behind her on a TVS moped and one of them snatched away her gold chain weighing 24 grams, worth about rs. 9,600/- from her neck. She raised cries and chased the accused, but in vain. Four days thereafter, after the arrival of her husband, she gave report to the Police. On 22-5-99, she identified her gold chain out of the four other ornaments in the Villag Administrative Officer s office. On 31-5-99, she identified the accused before the Magistrate in the Sub-jai premises, as the same persons who snatched her gold chain from her neck on that day. P. W. 1, however, admitted that she did not mention the identity particulars of the accused In her complaint to police and no doubt, she denied the suggestion that the accused were shown to her outside the Court and accordingly, she Identified them. ( 5 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 deposed that the Police never arrested anybody and nothing was seized in their presence from anybody. Exs. P-3 and P-4 are the mahazars. P. Ws. 2 and 3 denied the suggestion that they were speaking falsehood with a view to help the accused. ( 6 ) P. W. 4, Sub-Inspector of Police, - deposed that he registered a case in Crime No. 193 of 1999 upon the report of the defactocomplainant and handed over the file to his inspector. ( 7 ) P. W. 5 deposed that he worked as principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathl and as per the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, chittoor, he conducted test identification parade of the accused on 31-5-99, in crime No. 193 of 99 through P. W. 1 and that the complainant identified A-1 and A-2. This witness admitted that he had not recorded separate statements of the witnesses, other than that mentioned in the Police proceedings and mentioned the date of incident and names of witnesses. He had not mentioned the specific dresses wore by the suspects and non-suspects and also admitted that his chamber and the Sub-jail are located in the same compound. This witness admitted that he had not recorded separate statements of the witnesses, other than that mentioned in the Police proceedings and mentioned the date of incident and names of witnesses. He had not mentioned the specific dresses wore by the suspects and non-suspects and also admitted that his chamber and the Sub-jail are located in the same compound. ( 8 ) P. W. 6, Circle Inspector of Police, deposed that during the course of investigation, he arrested the accused on 22-5-99 and seized the property pertaining to the crimes in presence of the mediators 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, P. Ws. 2 and 3, in relation to the alleged recovery turned hostile. ( 9 ) IN Botcha Raju v. State, (1994) 2 Andh lt (Cri) 69, in an appeal against the order of conviction, this Court held that where recovery of stolen articles from the accused was not proved by the independent evidence and the panch witnesses turned hostile and no motive was made out against the hostile witnesses that they are Interested in the accused, conviction cannot be sustained on the evidence of sole Police Officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. ( 10 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, had recorded reasons in detail in paragraphs Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the accused are entitled to an order of acquittal. It is no doubt true that the test identification parade was held within a reasonable time in the present case. But however, certain infirmities in relation thereto had been pointed out by the learned magistrate. 19, 20, 21 and 22 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the accused are entitled to an order of acquittal. It is no doubt true that the test identification parade was held within a reasonable time in the present case. But however, certain infirmities in relation thereto had been pointed out by the learned magistrate. ( 11 ) IN Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 : (1981 Cri LJ 1014), the Apex court, while dealing with appreciation of evidence in the case of dacoity and murder, where none of the witnesses gave any description of the dacoits 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 witness identified dacoits from the test identification parade, held that conviction cannot be based only on the identification of the single witness. ( 12 ) IN Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 791 : (1974 cri LJ 674), while dealing with the evidentiary value of the identification parade, the Apex Court held :"in the case of test identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of the evidence Act, it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate 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 itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification 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. " ( 13 ) IN Yeshwant v. State of Maharashtra, air 1973 SC 337 : (1972 Cri LJ 1254), where suspect was seen by identifying witnesses before a test identification parade and no persons similar in appearance had been included in parade of only five persons and the suspect was with tape on his neck it was held that the test identification parade itself was a farce. ( 14 ) IN the light of the infirmities recorded in the test Identification parade by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Tirupathi, this Court is of the considered opinion that except the testimony of P. W. 1, absolutely there is no evidence relating to recovery, since P. Ws. 2 and 3 turned hostile. Hence, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate, in the facts narrated above, is well justified and warrants no interference by this Court. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.