observation mahazar. P.Ws.8 & 9 are the investigating officers. It is seen from the records that First Information Report was registered on 14.05.2010 on the complaint given by P.W.1, the driver of one of the buses. He has not given the vehicle number of the two wheeler in which the appellant is said to have travelled to throw stone on the buses. According to P.W.8, the appellant and the other accused were formally arrested while they were in custody with regard to another case in Crime No.580 of 2010. P.W.8 admits that the appellant and the other accused were not known to the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 3. He also admits that no test identification parade was conducted to ascertain if the accused were involved in the alleged occurrence. P.W.8 has not stated in his evidence as to how he identified the vehicle of the appellant and the appellant as the person involved in the alleged occurrence. Further the occurrence is said to have taken place on 14.05.2010. The witnesses were examined on 11.07.2017 nearly seven years after the occurrence. P.W.1 had not stated about the identifying features of the accused while he gave the complaint. In such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 as regards identification of the appellant seven years after the occurrence. Further the prosecution has also not established that the TVS-50 which is said to be involved in the occurrence belonged to the appellant.
