Where key witnesses in a criminal case fail to identify the accused and there is no scope for the prosecution to improve upon this evidence, the court may quash the proceedings against the accused to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 73 of 1997 on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate, Siricilla in Cr. No. 15 of 1992 of P. S. Konaraopeta, Kareemnagar district.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is A-7 in the case. As some of the accused were found absconding the case was split up and the case in respect of A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6, A-9 to A-13 was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S. C. No. 667 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagitial. The trial in respect of these accused was concluded and the learned Additional sessions Judge under the judgment dated 12-8-1998 acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings against this petitioner on the ground that the proceedings in the earlier Sessions Case reveal that the case of the prosecution failed for the reasons that the two injured eye-witnesses, p. W. 2 and P. W. 3 and the only other eye-witness P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. More particularly, it is pointed out that both P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 have categorically deposed that they were not in a position to identify any culprits, who were involved in the alleged offence of attacking them. P. W. 4 the other eye-witness deposed that some persons informed him that P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 were kidnapped. Thus, he denies that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence. P. W. I also denied that he witnessed the incident.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the trial is proceeded with, the end result would not be any different from the one in S. C. No. 667 of 1996, inasmuch as the same witnesses would have to be examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the prosecution case against this petitioner.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the petition states that the eye-witnesses p. W. 2 and P. W. 3 have failed to identify the accused who were charged with the offence in that Sessions Case and that this in itself would not lead to any inference that those eye-witnesses would not be able to identify the petitioner herein also.

( 6 ) THE possibility as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the eye-witnesses in question might have failed to identify the accused person on the day of deposition in the Court and that this in itself may not imply that they would be unable to identify the petitioner also is there, but a careful perusal of the certified copies of depositions of the concerned witnesses, which have been made available by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the petition, would show the failure of the witnesses to identify any culprits. The relevant portion of the deposition of P. W. 2 is extracted below. "they took us to the outskirts of the village. Due to the commotion, villagers also came to spot, in the meanwhile, the culprits shot me on my right leg and also shot Diwakar Rao (L. W. 3) on the legs and fled from the scene. I fell down due to the injuries. The villagers shifted both of us to the Karimnagar Hospital, where we were treated. As it was dark, I cannot identify the culprits who shot and injured me". This would show that the failure of the witnesses to identify the culprits was not confined to the accused present in the Court but the said failure was in respect of any culprits who participated in the alleged attack. To the same effect is the deposition of p. W. 3, the other injured eye-witness. He also stated;"i cannot identify the culprits as it was dark at the time of offence".

( 7 ) BESIDES these two injured the other eye-witnesses are said to be P. W. I and P. W. 4. A perusal of deposition of P. W. I would show that according to him he rushed towards the place of incident by raising hue and cry after the incident. He has stated that the culprits by