LAWS(KER)-2009-10-128

IMBICHIMON S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 19, 2009
Imbichimon S/O. Kunhimohammed Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st accused in S.C. No. 48 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track - I, Manjeri is the appellant in this appeal. He challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is as follows:

(3.) PW 1 who is a Police Constable and who accompanied PW3, confessed that they did not have any previous acquaintance with the accused and that A2 alone was arrested from the site. PW3, the detecting officer also confessed that he did not know A1 prior to the occurrence and that his identification of A1 as one of the persons who had made good his escape from the scene is as per the statement of A2. PW3 further confessed that A1 was not identified to him by anybody from the site. The role of PW4, the Sub Inspector who succeeded PW3 was only in laying the charge before court. PW5, the Head Constable only conducted further investigation by questioning the witnesses and preparing Ext.P5 scene mahazar. He has no direct knowledge about the detection. PW6 who was the Sub Inspector and who accompanied PW3 also confessed that he arrested only the 2nd accused and he too had no previous acquaintance with A1 and he was seeing A1 for the first time in court. All these witnesses were examined before court towards the end of January, 2003 which is six years after the detection. All of them had admitted that out of the two persons who were found in the house, one of them made good his hurried escape. So they had only a fleeting glimpse of the person who is now claimed to be A1. None of them had any opportunity to interact with A1 so as to remember his features six years thereafter. Hence, the identification of A1 by the prosecution witnesses six years after the occurrence without there being any test identification parade is absolutely valueless. (See Kanan v. State of Kerala : AIR 1979 SC 1127)