participated in the said acts, and they are not in a position to disclose the identity of the accused persons and the overt acts committed by the persons accused of the offences. Similarly, when the trial of the 20th accused was conducted, three witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case, but they also could not identify the accused therein. The evidence in the said case also would indicate that none of the said witnesses were in a position to identify the accused persons. Thus, it is evident that almost 18 out of 23 accused persons were already found not guilty as none of the eyewitnesses could identify any of the assailants in the incident, which occurred in the year 1992. There is no case for the prosecution that any of the witnesses have pre-acquaintance with the petitioner herein. Therefore, recognizing the accused after 30 years of the incident is also a remote possibility. As held in Moosa’s case (supra), if the substratum of the case is lost consequent to the acquittal of the co-accused, this Court can invoke the powers under section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the accused who are yet to face the trial.
