VASUDEVAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No.430 of 1999 of Muvattupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447,427 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Case stated in the FIR is that on 11.09.1999 at about 2 a.m. somebody trespassed into the compound of the company and destroyed barrels and the fluid in it. Case was originally referred as undetected and thereafter final report was submitted against petitioner incorporating offences as above stated. PETITIONER challenges Annexure-A2, final report on the ground that there is no material to connect him with the alleged incident. PETITIONER filed a petition for discharge before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha which was dismissed on 28.09.2007. That order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in the revision preferred by petitioner. Hence this petition. Learned counsel contended that CW1 is not a witness to the incident and even going by the statement of CW2 there is nothing to connect him with the incident. It is contended that there was no identification of petitioner made by CW2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) I have gone through the statement of CW1 appended to Annexure- A1, FIR where he stated that he knew about the incident when CW2, watchman told him. CW2 claimed to have witnessed the incident. He found the assailant making holes on the barrels with an iron bar and when he made a hue and cry the assailant threatened him with the iron bar. Scared, he ran away. Later he found the barrels broken and fluid coming out of it. CW2 has given a description of the assailant and claimed that he can identify that person. Assuming that the Police did not conduct a test identification parade, an order quashing the proceeding or discharging petitioner is not warranted. CW2 must be given an opportunity to identify the assailant. Question whether the identification that CW2 may make in court is acceptable or not is a matter which the trial court has to decide. The request for discharge was rightly turned down by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no reason to interfere. Trial court shall decide the issue regarding identity of the offender untrammeled by any observation contained in any of the orders. Petition is dismissed.