VENUGOPALAN Vs. PRAKASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A simple but important and interesting question of law has come up for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition. That is regarding the scope and ambit of an inquiry under S.202(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code with particular reference to the powers of the magistrate to conduct a test identification parade as part of such an inquiry.

(2.) One P.V. Prakasan, a little boy aged 11 years, son of one Lakshmi aged 45, was working as domestic servant at the residence of one Radha, employed as a Nurse in the Government Hospital, Tellicherry. On 25-4-1985 a necklace belonging to Radha was found missing and she suspected Prakasan. He was taken to the Tellicherry Police Station and the matter was reported by her. She went back leaving the boy to the mercy of the police. After sometime she found the necklace in the house itself. She went back to the police station and conveyed the information. The boy was released to her custody and she took him back to her house.

(3.) The complaint is that while in the police station the boy was cruelly manhandled by four police constables. The boy does not know the names and other details of the assailants. He could identify only one of them by name Chandran. This identification itself is because he heard one of them being called Chandran by others. He gave some identification marks of the assailants and said he could identify them by sight.