9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SR Layout in the town of Tirupur. On 09.0-8.1993, at about 05.30 a.m., he was going to a mosque for offering the morning prayers. He was returning back to his house accompanied by one Rasheed (PW-2) from the mosque. John Basha (deceased) and Usman Ali (PW-3, the injured), were walking ahead of them. Saleem (PW-4) and one Mubarak were behind them. 3. When the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3 turned towards a lane which was on the eastern side of the house of PW-2, the appellant and Udayakumar were seen coming from the opposite direction. Appellant allegedly shouted that they were the persons who had thrown the bomb at the RSS office and started stabbing the deceased indiscriminately. PW-3 (Usman Ali) was allegedly stabbed by Udayakumar. When they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant guilty of commission of the offence of murder of John Basha punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted Udayakumar for committing an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC; acquitted the other three accused persons. They were, however, acquitted of other charges. 7. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and the said Udayakumar. 8. We have been taken through the First Information Report as also the depositions of the so-called eye-witnesses. The nature and purport of the evidence of all the eye-witnesses are almost similar. 9. We may at the outset notice the evidence of the first informant (PW-1). According to him, the appellant and the said Udayakumar had been running towards John ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the fourth page of the newspaper, two photographs were published showing the persons connected with Tirupur murder case. Their names were also disclosed therein as Udayakumar and Ravi. He was not even cross- examined. 12. The High Court by a curious process of reasoning opined that as the DW-1 did not whisper a word that the photographs published in the newspaper were those of the photographs of the appellant and the said Udayakumar and as he had not been asked to identify them in court, his evidence was not admissible in law. 13. Objections were taken by the accused that their photographs had been taken in the police station. It has further been accepted that whereas the Accused No. 1 was short in stature, the appellant was tal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they were shown to be the accused in the aforementioned crime. Some of the them admittedly were aware of the said publication. The purported test identification parade which was held ten days thereafter, in our opinion, looses all significance, in the aforementioned fact situation. 17. It is no doubt true that the substantive evidence of identification of an accused is the one made in the court. A judgment of conviction can be arrived at even if no test identification parade has been held. But when a First Information Report has been lodged against unknown persons, a test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, is held for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssibility of their having been shown to the witnesses cannot be ruled out altogether. We do not, therefore, attach much importance to the identification made at the identification parades 20. Holding of a test identification parade after a long time particularly when their photographs were published has also been commented upon by this Court in Acharaparambath Pradeepan Anr. v. State of Kerala [2006 (13) SCALE 600], stating : Descriptions of a few persons were given in the statements of the child witnesses. Except A1, however, they were not arrested. The reason for their being not arrested had not been disclosed. They were arrested, as noticed hereinbefore, on 6.03.2000 only after their names were disclosed by PWs 7 and 8. Test I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible . [See also S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another (1993) (3) SCC 151] 22. We are not concerned with the speech made by a person, the authenticity or correctness whereof published in the newspaper is in dispute. We have seen the newspaper cutting. Photographs of the two accused have been shown; their names as accused had also been disclosed. 23. Publication of the news item with photographs has clearly been proved by DW-1. Prosecution witnesses, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
