Malkhansingh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2003
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant in Crl.Appeal
No.986/2021/1st accused Adv.Saigi Jacob Palatty contended that
PW1 is not at all a reliable witness and she has no acquaintance
with the first accused. He, by relying on the decision in
Malkhansingh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003 KHC
1069) submitted that since no test identification parade has been
conducted to identify the first accused, the same is fatal to the
prosecution case. He argued that the testimony of PW1 is in total
variance with Ext.P1 FIS and considerable improvements have
been made in her testimony. He submitted that PW1 has not
identified the weapon allegedly used by the first accused and MO6
Crl.Appeal Nos.986,479,511,570,887/2021 & 237/2023
18
2025:KER:28485
has no connection with the first accused. He contended that there
are no independent witnesses to the recovery of MO6 and the
same did not reach the FSL in a tamper proof condition. He also
submitted that no blood was found in the dresses of the first
accused and human blood was not detected in MO6. He, by relying
on the decision in Balwan Singh & Ors.v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Anr.(2019 (4) KHC 300), contended that since
the recovery itself is doubtful, the prosecution was duty bound to
prove the original blood group in the afore articles. He argued that
there is no motive for the accused to kill the deceased or Vineeth
and the first accused has been roped in falsely by PW66, who has
animosity with him. He further added that MO6 is a planted
weapon and is not the one, which was allegedly seized by the
investigating officer during investigation.