STATE OF KERALA Vs. UNNITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACQUITTAL of the respondent by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate -I Trivandrum in C.C. No. 324 of 1984 of offences punishable under sections 461 and 379 I. P. C is challenged by the State. PW 1, a Psychiatrist working as Assistant Surgeon in the General Hospital, Trivandrum, went with family on 25 -2 -1982 for second show film in the M.P. Theatre, Trivandrum keeping his locked car outside. When he came out after the film, the car was found opened and his Philips car stereo radio fitted in the dash missing. Next morning, he went to the Fort Police Station and gave first information statement. PW 5, who was then Sub Inspector there, registered a case as Crime No. 60 of 1982. It was later referred as undetected. He was then transferred as Sub Inspector, Poonthura. While so, on 3 -5 -1983 when he was on patrol duty at about 2 P. M. he saw the accused near the Bheemapally Junction attempting to sell a stereo under suspicious circumstances. On getting suspicion when questioned he was arrested and the stereo seized. A case was registered. On further questioning, the stereo was found to be the one involved in the above Crime No. 60 of 1982. It is MO 1 and was identified by PW1 as the one found missing from his car. The case was transferred to Fort Police Station. Crime No. 60 of 1982 was got revived. Investigation conducted by PW 5 in Crime No. 53 of 1983 of the Poonthura Police Station was completed by PW 6, the Sub Inspector of Fort Police station. He laid the charge.

(2.) ON 26 -2 -1982 itself, the car was sent to finger print bureau and photos of the finger impressions in the car were taken and developed. They were compared with the available impressions but did not tally. It is seen from the evidence of PW 5 that after Crime No. 60 of 1982 was revived, the specimen finger print of the accused was taken and sent to the bureau and on comparison, it was found to tally with the impression traced from the car. But from the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, it is not possible to decipher as to who took the specimen impression of the accused and forwarded it for comparison even though reference is made to a report Of the expert stating that the two tallied. The finger print expert was examined as PW 7. From the evidence of PW 5, it is seen that the accused is involved in some other crimes registered by various police stations. The evidence of PW 7 shows that from Crime No. 51 of 1982 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station, he received the finger impression of one G.G. Unnithan, S/o. N. G Unnithan (the description of the accused is the same) and on comparison it was found to tally with the impression traced from the car. His opinion is Ext. P9 and the enlarged photos were produced as Exts. P9 (a) and (b), Ext. P10 is copy of the covering letter sent by him along with the opinion to the Vanchiyoor Police Station.

(3.) SEVEN witnesses were examined and 10 documents were proved. MO 1 is the stereo radio. MO 1 was identified by PW 1 during investigation and in court also. He said that it was purchased by him in 1975 when he was studying in U.K. Though the bill or other papers were not produced, he has given cogent reasons in support of his empathic identification of MO 1, as the stereo radio purchased by him and found missing from his car. He particularly remembered the mounting frame specially purchased and fitted by him. He also said that the two speakers of it are, even now with him His evidence shows that there is not even the, scope for an honest mistake committed by him in the identification of MO 1 as his. This is quite so especially when the contention of the accused is only a flat denial of the recovery from him and he has no case that it belonged to somebody else or himself or that it came to him in some other manner. PW 1 appears to be a very respectable and honest witness who was speaking truth and truth alone. In my opinion, his identification of MO 1 is beyond doubt and it was not doubted by the Magistrate also.