Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.) The State has preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 made in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in and by which the respondents / Accused 1 to 8 and 10 are acquitted for the offences as under: 

                       Rank of the                 Charges framed under Sections
                        Accused
                     A1, A2 and A5 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC
                              A3       120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and
                                                   25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959
                              A4        120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and
                                                    25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959
                        A6 and A7       120(B), 365 r/w. 109, 364 r/w.109 IPC, 25(1B)(a)
                                       and Section 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 4(b) of
                                       Explosive Substances Act, 1908
                        A8 to A10      120(B), 364(A) r/w. 109, 365 r/w.109 IPC.

__________ Page17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm ) 2.35. PW46- Tmt.Sasikala, then Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam deposed that she had recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC of the witnesses and the compilation of such statements is Ex.P50. On 12.09.2001, she conducted Test Identification Parade and issued the Test Identification Report – Ex.P51.

TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE __________ Page36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

27. PW46- then learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam has conducted Test Identification Parade in the Central Prison, Coimbatore and issued the report – Ex.P51, wherein it has been mentioned that the witnesses PWs.2, 3 and 4 have identified the accused. In the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, there is no mention about physical identification of the accused persons. Further the Investigating Officer recorded Section 161 CrPC statement of PW2 on 28.09.2000 and subsequently, after a lapse of 2 months from the date of the occurrence. Further Mrs.Parvathamma was examined on 19.12.2000 after a lapse of 4 ½ months and also sent their statement to the learned Judicial Magistrate only on 03.05.2001 and therefore, statements have been recorded from the eye witnesses only after a lapse of 4 months and also belatedly sent to the Court. In the statement given by the witnesses, PW2 have not mentioned about the identification of the accused. There is possibility of seeing the photographs of the accused in the newspaper or television. In this regard, PW5, in his cross examination, categorically admits that before conducting Test Identification Parade, he had seen the accused in the newspaper and television channels. So it is clear that after seeing the photographs of the accused persons in the newspaper and television, they have identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade. It is also to be noted that after a lapse of 4 ½ months, statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and only on 12.08.2000, Test Identification Parade has been conducted in this case. Therefore, there is possibility of the eye witnesses seeing the photographs of the __________ Page37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm ) accused in the newspaper, could have identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the statement given by the witness before the learned Judicial Magistrate, admittedly they have not stated anything about the name of the persons or their physical identification. It is to be noted that when the witnesses have not described the physical identification of the accused in the cross examination, how they identified the accused on seeing the newspaper or television channels and the same would lead the Investigating Officer to come to a wrong conclusion. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court rightly found that the Test Identification report submitted under Ex.P51 is not acceptable one.

46. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances. The present case does not fall in the category of a light-hearted acquittal, which is shunned upon in law. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court.

47. In the light of the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 in S.C.No.51/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. No costs.