PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 181/05 is the first accused and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1452/2004 is the second accused in S.C.No.130 of 2004 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.(V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. They stand convicted for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for nine years. Challenging the same, the accused are before this Court with these two appeals.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case in brief are as follows: i) P.W.1 was employed under P.W.3 as a taxi driver. P.W.3 owned a car bearing registration No.TNI 2838. On 23.09.2001, P.W.1 was in charge of the car and he had parked the car in the taxi stand at Tiruppur. At about 9.00 p.m, P.W.2, a driver in a different taxi came to him and informed that two persons had come to engage a taxi to go to Vanchipalayam. He further stated that he was since pre-occupied, if possible P.W.1 could go. P.W.1 found these accused standing by the side of P.W.2 THEy agreed to pay Rs.300/- as hire charges. Accordingly, P.W.1 took the taxi and he was proceeding on the road as suggested by the accused. When the vehicle was on its way to Vanchipalayam, the accused wanted him to stop the vehicle in order to facilitate them to go for passing urine. Accordingly, P.W.1 stopped the vehicle. At that time, suddenly, the accused brandished a knife at P.W.1, pushed him down from the car and dragged him into the nearby bush. THEy tied his legs and hands, closed his mouth and eyes with cloth and abandoned him in the bush. THEn they took away a sum of Rs.1,700/-, a wrist watch and a gold ring from P.W.1. Both the accused fled away in the car leaving P.W.1 in the bush. After sometime, P.W.1 managed to loosen the knots and go over to the nearby field. He went to the field of P.W.4 which is located somewhere near the place of occurrence. P.W.4, removed the knots. THEreafter, P.W.1 informed P.W.4 about the occurrence. On the next day, a complaint was given to the Police on which basis the present case was registered. ii) P.W.10, registered the case in Crime No.414 of 2001 on 24.09.2011 at about 12.15 p.m. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, recovered the cloth used for closing the mouth and eyes of P.W.1 from P.W.1 in the place of occurrence. THEn P.W.10 was informed that the car, namely, car bearing registration No.TNI 2838 was found abandoned near the Emarald Auto Works at Majit Road, Erode. THErefore, he took witnesses and P.W.6 to the said place and recovered the vehicle under a recovery mahazar. THE first accused was arrested in connection with some other case and A.2 was taken into police custody on the orders of the Court and he also gave confession but nothing was recovered. On completing investigation, P.W.10 laid charge sheet. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Section 397 read with 34 I.P.C against the accused. THE accused denied the charges and therefore, they were put on trial. iii) Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were exhibited. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they exhibit any document. iv) Having considered all the above oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty and imposed R.I for nine years. It is against the same, the accused have come forward with these two appeals.

(3.) NOW, coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is his contention that there was no testing identification parade held to enable the witnesses to identify the accused and so, the identification of the accused made for the first time during the trial cannot be given any weightage of. In this regard, I may state that it is not as though the witnesses had occasion to see the accused only for a fraction of time. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused travelled along with P.W.1 for quite some time. That means, P.W.1 would have been in a position to have a complete picture of these accused in his mind. That is how, he has identified the accused in the Court. Therefore, though the Court should be reluctant to act upon the identification made for the first time in the Court for want of previous testing identification parade, in the case on hand, I am of the view that the failure to hold testing identification parade would not in any manner cause any doubt in respect of the identification of the accused made by P.W.1 in the Court. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard is rejected.