Case: Kanan Vs. State of Kerala

The appellants were convicted under S.120B read with S.308 and sentenced to eight years R.I. They were also convicted under S.147 and 148 other offences. The charge against the accused was that they had entered into a conspiracy as members of naxalite party to raid the Police Station, Kuttiadi on the night/morning of December 17/18, 1969. In the course of the raid the police station was attacked and its articles were burnt. No member of the police station or staff was able to identify the raiders. The only evidence on the basis of which the appellants have been convicted may be categorised as follows :      1. Evidence of PW 17 and 18 to the effect that there was conspiracy to raid the police station in question in which the appellants have participated;      2. The evidence of PW 25 who identified the appellants running away near the scene of occurrence after the raid took place on the police station;      3. The extra judicial confession of appellant Piyachi (accused 5) to PW 27 widow of Velayudhan who died in the course of the occurrence.      This is all the evidence on the basis of which the appellants have been convicted.

Reasoning: In these circumstances, therefore, we feel that it was incumbent on the prosecution in this case to have arranged T. I. parade and got the identification made before the witness was called upon to identify the appellant in the Court. On this ground alone, the testimony of PW 25 becomes unworthy of credence and must be excluded from consideration. In this view of the matter, even if the evidence of PWs 17 and 18 regarding the participation of the accused in conspiracy to raid the police station be accepted, the evidence being of very vague nature, the appellant cannot be convicted because there is no evidence to show that the appellants were members of that conspiracy. Apart from this, PWs 17 and 18 named Piyachi as being the person in the meeting where it was decided to raid the police station. Form the evidence of these witnesses, it appears that they were also. In the circumstances, the evidence of these witnesses was that of an accomplice and could not be accepted without further corroboration2. Coming to the extra judicial confession of Piyachi before PW 27, we find it difficult to accept this evidence which is a very weak type of evidence and has made to PW 27 who was the widow of one of the conspirators and was helping her husband in making spears and other weapons. For these reason, therefore, we are unable to rely on the evidence furnished by the extra judicial confession. Thus the position is, that there is absolutely no legal evidence on the basis of which the appellants could be convicted.