Appellant appealed conviction under Section 8(2) Abkari Act for possession of illicit arrack. Court held identification evidence inadmissible due to absence of test identification parade and acquitted appellant.
Accused acquitted of offence and set at liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 1932 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 492/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SUDHAKARAN,S/O RAMANKUTTY, KORANGATTU CHALIL HOUSE, KAKKUR AMSOM, NADUVALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.S.ANISH SMT.C.G.PREETHA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SMT.REKHA. S, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A No.1932 of 2008
2
K.BABU, J.
Criminal Appeal No.1932 of 2008
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2022
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.08.2008, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode in S.C.No.492/2006, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it was made over to the Trial Court. On the appearance of the accused,
3
Crl.A No.1932 of 2008
charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and therefore, he came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.
4
Crl.A No.1932 of 2008
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the person who was allegedly carrying the contraband substance at the scene of occurrence.
substance contained in the can was seized.
2 identified the accused in 2008 after a long lapse of almost 7
5
Crl.A No.1932 of 2008
years. Their identification of the accused in the box is not admissible.
Crl.A No.1932 of 2008
6
and sentence entered by the Court below overlooking these vital aspects of the matter cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result, the accused is acquitted of the offence alleged. He is set at liberty.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE
KAS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution failed to establish identity of the person carrying contraband due to lack of test identification parade.
Whether bare testimony of witnesses identifying accused without prior acquaintance or TIDP is admissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanan and others v. State of KeralaReferred¶10
Kanan and others v. State of Kerala (AIR 1979 SC 1127) · Who else cites this
Jameel v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Jameel v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2007 SC 971] · Who else cites this
Raja v. State by the Inspector of PoliceReferred¶10
Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police [AIR 2020 SC 254] · Who else cites this
State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C.Shukla and anotherReferred¶10
State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C.Shukla and another [AIR 1980 SC 1382] · Who else cites this
Mohd.Abdul Hafeez v. State of APReferred¶10
Mohd.Abdul Hafeez v. State of AP [AIR 1983 SC 367] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDHAKARAN
STATE OF KERALA
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. BABU
Parties & counsel
