IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Test identification parade conducted during course of investigation cannot be used to corroborate subsequent in-court identification made by witnesses – In-court identification of accused made by witnesses need not be doubted.
(2) Disclosure statement – Only information given by accused that can be proved is information that distinctively leads to recovery of a fact.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.—Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in S.C.No.98/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Thalassery have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 449, 324, 461, 396 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Before delving into the prosecution’s allegation, it is necessary to address the names and ranks of the accused to avoid confusion, as the ranks of the accused were rearranged by the Trial Court creating some vagueness. Altogether, five persons were arrayed as accused in this case, out of which three were juveniles in conflict with law (JCLs) and two were adults. The names of the adult accused are:-

1) Rintu @ Thoofan Pradhan and

2) Boliya Hoori

Out of which Bholiya Dhahoori was absconding from the crime stage itself.

The names of the JCLs are as follows:-

1) Ganesh Naik @ Goniya(JCL1),

2) Bappunna @ Rajesh Behra(JCL2) and

3) Chintu @ Prasanth Sethi (JCL3).

3. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the adult accused and in the final report, Rintu @ Thoofan Pradhan was arrayed as the second accused, and Boliya Hoori, the absconding accused was arrayed as the fifth accused. The case against the fifth accused was then split up and renumbered as C.P. No. 6/2019, and the case against the second accused was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. On the committal of the case against the second accused, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance, and the case was numbered as S.C. No. 98/2019. Later, the said case was made over to Additional Sessions Court -I, Thalassery for trial and disposal.

4. In the meantime, the report against JCLs was also submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment as provided under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with the assistance of a Psychologist. After the said preliminary assessment, the Juvenile Justice Board found that there is a need for the trial of the said juveniles in conflict with the law as adults and to be tried before the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences. The Juvenile Justice Board then transferred the entire records of the case with respect to JCLs to the Sessions Court, Thalassery where the case was numbered as S.C. No.406/2019. Thereafter, the said case was also made over to Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery, which is the designated Children’s court.

5. After hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a written charge against Rintu @ Thoofan who is shown as the second accused in the final report as well as in S.C. No.98/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 449, 324, 461, 396, 302 IPC. The fifth accused in S.C. No. 98/2019 remained absconding.

6. Likewise, a written charge was framed against accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 (JCL Nos.1 to 3) in S.C. No.406/2019 alleging the above-mentioned same offences. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As S.C. No.406/2019 and S.C. No.98/2019 were cases that arose out of the same transaction, both the said cases were subsequently clubbed together as S.C. No. 98/2019. Consequently, Rintu Thoofan @ Thoofan Pradhan is ranked as A1. Sri. Bholiya Dhahoori, the absconding accused who is shown as A5 in the final report is shown as A2. Similarly, Ganesh Naik @ Goniya, Bappunna @ Rajesh Behra, and Chintu @ Prasanth Sethi (JCL1 to JCL3) were ranked as A3 to A5 respectively.

7. The prosecution allegation as per the original charge sheet prior to the above-mentioned clubbing and rearrangement of the rank of the accused is as follows:-

One Ganesh Naik @ Goniya and Rintu @ Thooofan Pradhan were former employees of Greenwood Plywood Company owned by