where a witness had previous acquaintance with an accused identification from court is not required. Now, as regards accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.862/2011 and 840/2011 who are respectively the official witnesses like PWs 11, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 25 got previous acquaintance with them. They were working along with accused Nos.2 and at the relevant point of time. Add to it, it is to be noted that a bare perusal of certain answers made by both accused Nos.2 and 3 during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would reveal that they themselves virtually admitted the fact that they are the policemen by name Sunil and Prabhakaran then attached to Agali Police Station. Obviously, they admitted that those entries pertain to them. Above all, it is to be noted that they categorically admitted the fact that Ext.P13 is the GD relating Agali Police Station. It contains their names and specific entries were made with respect to the duties assigned to them during the relevant period. When they admitted those facts the fact that PWs 6, 16 and 18 did not identify them from court would have no consequence at all. Even otherwise, when the prosecution got no case that PWs6, 16 and 18 are eye witnesses to the incident the fact that they did not identify the accused persons has no relevancy as far as this case is concerned. It is also relevant to note that during the 313 examination the second accused admitted the fact that after reporting
