Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. A witness to the Test Identification Parade deposed as PW4. He stated that on 19.03.2009 at noon, he had been to Fairlie Place for purchasing a railway ticket. There, he could see that one person standing ahead of him in the queue was apprehended by STF, Kolkata and it was disclosed that the apprehended person was a terrorist. He was examined by the police. He was served with a notice to attend TI Parade and identified the accused in such TI Parade.

17. A taxi driver was examined as PW5. He stated that on 19.03.2009 at 2.15 pm, he dropped a passenger and been to Fairlie Place. He heard some hue and cry inside the railway reservation centre. He could see one person was detained by police personnel, who was told to be a terrorist. PW5 recorded an statement to the effect that he could identify the detained person. PW5 identified the appellant in the court. He also identified the appellant in Presidency Jail when such person was put on TI Parade.

22. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who conducted TI Parade also deposed as PW8. He tendered the report of TI Parade prepared by him and the envelope containing such report (Ext. 21 and 21/1).

23. The then Officer-in-charge of Hare Street police station was examined as PW9. He stated that on 19.03.2009 he received a written complaint along with some seized articles and one accused from Assistant Commissioner of Police, STF, Kolkata. He endorsed such receipt by lodging a GDE and his side note (Ext.22 and 22/1). He also proved the Formal First Information Report (Ext. 20). He was initially endorsed with the investigation of the case but later on it was handed over to STF.

41. However, it is the prosecution's case that the appellant was apprehended from 6, Fairlie Place while he was standing in the queue for purchasing a railway ticket. Filled in reservation slip was recovered from his possession. The presence of the appellant at such place was duly testified by PW2, the officer who arrested the appellant, coupled with the signature of the appellant on the seizure list, arrest memo and other documents. At least four public/independent witnesses and two police officers, besides PW2 have also testified such arrest. There appears no explanation forthcoming on the part of appellant as to how his signatures were obtained on such documents in view of his claim that nothing was recovered from his possession or he was in no way connected with the instant case. PW 4 and PW5 were very much present during the search and seizure conducted upon the appellant. They are in no way connected with the police or any authority to justify the blame of being partisan witnesses. They not only witnessed such search and seizure at the spot but also identified the appellant in court as well as in the TI Parade. The defence could not extract anything to shake the credibility of such witnesses in their cross examination. PW6 and PW7 were RPF constables and were on duty at the relevant date and time in the premises from where the appellant was apprehended. The cross examination of these witnesses depicts no deviation in the account of the happenings given by them. They were there and had valid reasons to be there. The account search, seizure and arrest of the appellant given by these two witnesses are quite consistent with the account given by PW2, 5, 6 and 7. There appears absolutely no inconsistency in the deposition of these witnesses vis-a-vis that of the seizure list witnesses, PW3 and PW8 on one hand and the prosecution case on the other. PW 3 and PW8 have not only identified the appellant as the person from whose possession articles and documents were seized, in the court but they have also identified the seized articles as well. They signed on the seizure list as well as the labels attached to such articles which were also identified by these witnesses.