Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State that the bag snatched by the accused persons was recovered from the possession of accused Bablu, therefore, it was established that he was one of the assailants, is not acceptable to us, as the recovery of the said bag does not appear to us free of suspicion. Mehtab (PW-11), an independent witness of the alleged seizure, stated that he and the police officers remained out of the house from which Bablu had brought out the bag and that the house was already lying open. Though there was nobody on the first floor where the room was situated, yet there were tenants in the ground floor. Apart from that, the seized bag was though put up for test identification conducted by Naib Tahsildar, Zulfikar Hyder (PW-25), but, on perusal of his statement, it is seen that he did not say even a word about holding the identification of the said article. Yet another important aspect is that according to Akeel (PW-1), applications for Bank Drafts were given to him by Idris and the currency notes were kept in a bag by Zahid, but Idris (PW-4) did not say a single word about giving these articles to any of them. It is also strange that the applications for drafts were found in the seized bag when they were in the possession of Akeel. Akeel did not say that these applications were snatched from him or that he had kept them in the bag. In our opinion, for these reasons and in the absence of the evidence of the person, who conducted the test identification of the article, the test identification could not be held proved and in the absence of such evidence the identification of the articles before the Court cannot be accepted.