The absence of dock identification of accused renders the prosecution's evidence insufficient to uphold a conviction.

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 324 , 341 and 427 r/w 34 IPC in S.C. No. 48 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha as per the judgment dated 07.02.2014.

2. As per the prosecution case, while PW1 and others were standing near the water tank at Kanjirampara on 11.05.2011, at 10.30 p.m., the 1^st accused who came there abused PW1 and his friends. When PW1 questioned the 1^st accused, he called the 2^nd accused through phone and after the arrival of the 2^nd accused there, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, attacked PW1 and his companions. The 2^nd accused kicked down the motorcycle of PW1 and when PW1 interfered the 1^st accused caught him and the 2^nd accused stabbed PW1 with a knife on the left side of face and chest causing serious injuries.

3. Even though, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 308, 324, 341 and 427 r/w 34 IPC , the trial court found the accused persons not guilty of the offence under Section 308 r/w 34 .

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that PWs 1 and 2 are the only occurrence witnesses who supported the prosecution and there is no proper dock identification of the accused persons by PWs 1 and 2. It is also argued that the recovery of MO1 knife as per Exhibit P3 seizure mahazar is not at all reliable and that the evidence of PW8, doctor, and Exhibit P12, wound certificate, does not tally with the injuries noted in Exhibit P13, discharge certificate of PW1 and therefore, the appellants/accused are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs

1 and 2 before the court tallies with the evidence of PW8 doctor and Exhibit P12, wound certificate, and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment.

7. According to PW1, on 11.05.2011, at about 10.30 p.m., while he was talking to his friends near the water tank at Kanjirampara, the 1^st accused came there and asked them to go away from there and he also addressed them in obscene words. PW1 also deposed that the 1^st accused called the 2^nd accused and within 5 minutes, he reached there in a motorbike and thereafter, the 2^nd accused kicked down his motorcycle. PW1 would say that when he objected, the 1^st accused caught him from behind and then the 2^nd accused stabbed him with a knife on his face, left side of chest and left side of the abdomen. PW1 identified MO1 as the knife used by the accused for stabbing him.

8. However, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not made any attempt for dock identification of the accused persons through PW1. Regarding the occurrence, PW2 also deposed in the same manner as PW1; but, there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution for dock identification of the accused persons through PW2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also invited my attention to Exhibit P1, First Information Statement recorded on 12.05.2011, to point out that in Exhibit P11, PW1 has no case that the 2^nd accused kicked down his motorcycle at the time of occurrence.

10. It cannot be disputed that the substantive evidence is the identification of the accused persons in court by the witness and even if the witness and the accused are persons known to each other, it is obligatory for the witness to identify the accused in court by pointing out that the person referred to by him in the evidence is the person who is standing in the dock and it is obligatory for the court to record in the depositio