IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; delays in Test Identification Parades do not automatically invalidate witness identifications if proper safeguards are maintained.

JUDGMENT :

SK Medhi, J .

The instant appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 17.04.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 72/2006. By the same judgment, the respondents-accused have been acquitted.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by one Muminur Rahman (PW3) on 01.04.1998, at 7.40 am. It has been stated that on the previous night of 31.03.1998 between 2 to 2.30 a.m., some dacoits attacked their house and took away gold ornaments and cash. The dacoits had also shot in the leg of the cousin of the informant Akaddas and had also shot his uncle Muhammad Ali resulting in his death. The informant had, however stated that he could not identify any one of them.

3. Based on the said Ejahar, the formal FIR was lodged and investigation began. After the investigation, charge sheet was laid against five accused persons. However, one accused person had absconded and therefore, the trial had proceeded against four nos. of accused persons.

4. PW1 is the cousin of the informant who had called for the police. He had submitted that his father Mohamad Ali was shot dead by the dacoits and his cousin Akaddas was also shot in the leg. He had deposed that in the Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as TIP), he could identify three nos. of accused persons, out of which, Ashik and Main Uddin were also identified in the dock.

5. PW2 is Makaddas Ali who is the cousin of the informant. He had also deposed that in the TIP held, he could identify four out of five of the assailants who were also identified in the dock.

6. PW3 is the informant who had also identified the accused persons in the TIP.

7. PW4 Akaddas Ali is the cousin of the informant. He had stated that during the attack, he could identify Abdul Malik as one of the assailants. He had stated that there were three residential houses in the compound which were the subject matter of the attack by the dacoits.

8. PW5 Sajjad Ali is also a cousin of the informant. He had stated that on hearing the commotion, he had first ran to the nearby BSF camp and thereafter to the police camp. He had also identified the accused persons in the TIP.

9. PW6 is the Doctor who had conducted post-mortem on Mohamad Ali. In his opinion, the death was a result of the firearm injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. The post-mortem report was proved as Exhibit-4.

10. PW7 is the Doctor who had examined Akaddas (PW4). He deposed that Akaddas had sustained gunshot injury on his left leg. The report submitted by him on such injury was proved as Exhibit-5.

11. PW8 is the Judicial Magistrate 1 ^st Class who had conducted the TIP. He had submitted that two TIPs were conducted, one on 03.08.1998 and the second on 12.08.1998. Both the TIP reports were proved as Exhibits-6 and 7.

12. PW9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who had done further investigation. He had also deposed that S.I. BK Das had investigated the case earlier. He had also deposed about the TIP.

13. After the prosecution evidence was complete, the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons were put to them in their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC wherein they had denied the circumstances against them.

14. After consideration of the materials on record, including the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) by the impugned judgment 17.04.2008 had acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.

15. We have heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP, Assam for the appellant-State. We have also heard Shri A Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

16. Ms. Bhuyan, the learned APP has submitted