Eyewitness identification in court is essential for establishing the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases lacking prior acquaintance.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, and the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-III, Thalassery, in C.C.No.542/1998 & Crl.A.No.251/2000 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.08.1998, at about

09:00 p.m., the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 by stabbing him from behind upon his left shoulder and left hand with a knife, while PW1 was drawing water from a public well by the side of the road near Sree Narayana Vilasam L.P. School, in Mokeri Amsom, Kannur. The motive for the commission of the crime is said to be the political animosity of the petitioner with PW1.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and marked four documents as Exts P1 to P4. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has successfully established the commission of offence under Section 324 IPC by the petitioner. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 testified before the Trial Court about the occurrence of the crime. PW1, the injured, stated before the Trial Court that while he was drawing water from the public well, the accused came from behind and stabbed him upon his left shoulder and left arm with a knife, causing deep cut injuries. According to PW1, he saw the accused committing the aforesaid act in the street light. PW2 & PW3 are the persons, who are said to have rushed to the spot hearing the wailing of PW1. The above witnesses also testified before the Trial Court that they saw the accused running away from that place, while PW1 stood with stab injuries upon his left shoulder and left arm. However, none of the above witnesses stated before the Trial Court that it was the person standing in the dock whom they referred as the accused who committed the aforesaid acts. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the aforesaid evidence of PW1 to PW3, to arrive at the finding that the petitioner had inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 with a dangerous knife at about 09:00 p.m., on 19.08.1998.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the courts below committed a grave error in relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW3, since the above witnesses had not identified the petitioner in Court during the course of trial. Thus, it is pointed out that, in the absence of dock-identification of the accused by the witnesses, the courts below went wrong in proceeding with the conviction and sentence.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 do not reveal that the above witnesses had identified the petitioner/accused in Court at the time when they tendered evidence. The anomaly in the above regard assumes much significance in the facts and circumstances of this case since t