Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. P.W.8-Sri.Kajil Abdul Iftakar has identified his signature on the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.8) as per Ex.P.,8(b). He stated that he has signed the mahazar in Hennur Police Station where the police have seized the passenger auto, but he does not remember the number of the auto. He has identified the photograph (Ex.P.4). He stated that with respect to kidnap case, the police have apprehended the people who had driven the said witness.

As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as partly hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 12.01.2014 the police seized the auto and at that time Yousuff was also present with him. He admitted that at the time of seizure of the auto, Mathew was in the custody of the police. He has denied the suggestion that he came to know that the said accused along with other accused had kidnapped C.W.2, but stated that he has heard about it.

26. In the present case, it is alleged that the victim was being kidnapped in the auto belonging to accused No.4. But it is pertinent to note that the victim nor any of the eye witnesses i.e., surrounding shop keepers have stated the number of the auto in which the victim was taken. Also no evidence placed before the court to establish that on the alleged day, the accused No.4 was in the auto.

27. In the present case, it is alleged that 5 people are involved in kidnapping C.W.2. To ascertain the identify the accused and the role played by them, it is the primary duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct Test Identification Parade without any delay, but same has not been done. The non-conducting of Test Identification Parade by the Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution as the victim was not familiar with accused prior to the date of incident and the incident has occurred in the night hours.