Case: JAYAN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Parade was not held and the witness never knew accused before the incident. 15. It is well settled that T.I Parade is a part of investigation and it is not a substantive evidence. The question of holding T.I Parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness. In some cases, the Court may be impressed with testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality. In such cases, the testimony of such a witness can be believed. In the present case, PW13 accepted that he is not able to identify any persons whom he had seen 11 years back. However, he asserted that he can identify the accused Nos.2 and 4 though he had seen them for the first time more than 11 years back on the date of the incident. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the evidence of PW13 as regards the identification of the accused Nos.2 and 4 in the Court cannot be accepted. 16. PW5 who was working as ASI at the concerned police station identified the accused No.2. However, he has not stated that the accused No.2 who was arrested at the spot was driving the truck. PW6 Shri A. S Krishnan was working as a Sales Tax Inspector at the relevant time. He stated that the truck was stopped at 12:30p.m at the check post when the cleaner of the truck claimed that it contained dry coconut leaves. He claimed that a clerk Shri Balachandran climbed on the top of the truck for taking search. He claimed that as the driver started the truck, the said Shri Balachandran jumped from the truck. The said Shri Balachandran has not been examined as a witness though he is an employee of the department. The witness claimed that he reached the place where the truck was stopped. He stated that the driver of the truck was arrested who was standing there. He identified the driver as the accused No.2. However, the witness has not claimed that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck. 17. PW7, who was head constable attached to the concerned police station claimed that the truck was stopped and the driver and two others ran away. He identified the accused No.2 as the person who was driving the truck. He also identified the accused No.4 as a person who ran away. However, the witness has not stated he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck. 18. PW8 was a police constable working at the concerned police station. He claimed that after the truck was stopped, three persons in the truck ran away. One was caught who disclosed that he was the driver of the truck. He identified the accused No.2 in the Court. However, he has not seen accused No.2 driving the truck. PW10 Shri N. George was a police constable attached to the concerned police station who claimed that after the truck was stopped, three persons inside the truck ran away and one person who was stopped, claimed to be the driver of the truck. However, he has not stated that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck. He also identified the accused No. 4 as a person who ran away from the truck. 19. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW12 Mr. R. Prathapan Nair who was the investigation officer. He stated that on 25th July 1999, he received information while he was on duty in the police station that a truck bearing number KLY-730 went passed check post causing damage to barricades and it was transporting some illegal articles. He along with the police party went out to locate the truck which was found near Khadi Board at Kizhamachal and tried to stop it. He alleged that on seeing the police party, the driver of the truck stopped the same. According to him, the driver and two others stepped out from the truck and ran away. The police party could get hold of the driver of the truck who was arrested. He stated that in the mahazar, the presence of accused No.2 was noted. He identified the accused No.2 in the Court. In the cross examination, he stated that as a police vehicle was not available, a private vehicle was used and the driver of the said vehicle is not a witness. He accepted that though mahazar records that a copy of RC book was found in the truck, it is not produced in the Court. He admitted that though he enquired with RTO, the record of RTO is not produced in the Court. It is pertinent to note that in the examination chief, PW12 did not state that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck. Even in this case, the evidence of PW12 has been recorded more than 11 years after the date of the incident. 20. It is very difficult to believe that PW13 who was not knowing the accused Nos.2 and 4 prior to the incident could identify them in the Court after lapse of 11 years. That is also the case with all the official witnesses. The prosecution has chosen not to produce evidence regarding the correct registration number of the truck and the name of the registered owner thereof. Therefore, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is pertinent to note that Shri Sajan Mathai and Shri Chandran who were the alleged prior owners of the truck were not examined by the prosecution. Surprisingly, no investigation was made whether the correct registration number of the truck was KLY-730 or KLB-7589. It appears that the prosecution came to the conclusion that the correct registration number of the truck was KLB-7589 on the basis of a photocopy of R.C book allegedly found in the seized truck. However, as admitted by PW12 - the investigation officer, the said photocopy of the R.C book was not produced by the prosecution.13. A very shocking aspect of the case is that the prosecution did not even produce the record of the RTO in respect of the registration of the truck. Though the chassis and engine number of the truck were recorded in the mahazar, no investigation was carried out to ascertain the correct registration number of the offending truck. Thus, the identity of the truck itself becomes doubtful. The most relevant evidence of the record of RTO showing the name of the registered owner was withheld by the prosecution. There is no documentary evidence placed on record to show that the accused No. 1 was the owner of the offending truck at the relevant time. There is no other evidence pressed into service by the prosecution against the accused No.1. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is a case of no evidence against the accused No.1. Thus, there was no justification for convicting the accused No. 1.14. Now, coming to the case against the accused Nos.2 and 4, apart from official witnesses, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence PW13 Shri Madhu who was stated to be an independent witness. The witness claimed that he was standing by the side of the road when he saw a truck passing through containing coconut leaves. He claims that after the truck passed through, a white ambassador car followed the truck. After some time, policemen came there who enquired with him whether he had seen a truck containing coconut leaves passing through. The witness claimed that he followed the police and he saw the driver running out of the truck after stopping the truck. He stated that the driver was caught by the police. The witness purported to identify the accused Nos.2 and 4 who were present in the Court as the persons who ran away from the truck. In the cross examination, he accepted that he was not able to identify all the persons whom he had seen 11 years back. But he claimed that he could identify the accused No.2 and he knew his name. He accepted that before the incident of 25th July 1999, he had not seen the accused and even any time thereafter, he had not seen the accused. He was examined before the Court on 20th April 2011. Thus, he deposed before the Court after 11 years and 9 months after the date of the incident. It is pertinent to note that admittedly T.I Parade was not held and the witness never knew accused before the incident.15. It is well settled that T.I Parade is a part of investigation and it is not a substantive evidence. The question of holding T.I Parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness. In some cases, the Court may be impressed with testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality. In such cases, the testimony of such a witness can be believed. In the present case, PW13 accepted that he is not able to identify any persons whom he had seen 11 years back. However, he asserted that he can identify the accused Nos.2 and 4 though he had seen them for the first time more than 11 years back on the date of the incident. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the evidence of PW13 as regards the identification of the accused Nos.2 and 4 in the Court cannot be accepted.16. PW5 who was working as ASI at the concerned police station identified the accused No.2. However, he has not stated that the accused No.2 who was arrested at the spot was driving the truck. PW6 Shri A. S Krishnan was working as a Sales Tax Inspector at the relevant time. He stated that the truck was stopped at 12:30p.m at the check post when the cleaner of the truck claimed that it contained dry coconut leaves. He claimed that a clerk Shri Balachandran climbed on the top of the truck for taking search. He claimed that as the driver started the truck, the said Shri Balachandran jumped from the truck. The said Shri Balachandran has not been examined as a witness though he is an employee of the department. The witness claimed that he reached the place where the truck was stopped. He stated that the driver of the truck was arrested who was standing there. He identified the driver as the accused No.2. However, the witness has not claimed that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck.19. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW12 Mr. R. Prathapan Nair who was the investigation officer. He stated that on 25th July 1999, he received information while he was on duty in the police station that a truck bearing number KLY-730 went passed check post causing damage to barricades and it was transporting some illegal articles. He along with the police party went out to locate the truck which was found near Khadi Board at Kizhamachal and tried to stop it. He alleged that on seeing the police party, the driver of the truck stopped the same. According to him, the driver and two others stepped out from the truck and ran away. The police party could get hold of the driver of the truck who was arrested. He stated that in the mahazar, the presence of accused No.2 was noted. He identified the accused No.2 in the Court. In the cross examination, he stated that as a police vehicle was not available, a private vehicle was used and the driver of the said vehicle is not a witness. He accepted that though mahazar records that a copy of RC book was found in the truck, it is not produced in the Court. He admitted that though he enquired with RTO, the record of RTO is not produced in the Court. It is pertinent to note that in the examination chief, PW12 did not state that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck. Even in this case, the evidence of PW12 has been recorded more than 11 years after the date of the incident.20. It is very difficult to believe that PW13 who was not knowing the accused Nos.2 and 4 prior to the incident could identify them in the Court after lapse of 11 years. That is also the case with all the official witnesses. The prosecution has chosen not to produce evidence regarding the correct registration number of the truck and the name of the registered owner thereof. Therefore, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful.