Failure to identify the accused in court renders prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.1265/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 326 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 I.P.C. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under I.P.C. For the offence under I.P.C, the Appellate Court sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for three months and fine Rs.3,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for thirty days. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

3. The prosecution case is that on 05.11.1997 at about 7:30 p.m, the accused inflicted voluntary grievous hurt, and hurt upon PW1 and PW2 respectively by physically assaulting them with a kitchen knife and a stick. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused hacked PW1 with a kitchen knife resulting in the amputation of the tip portion of the left little finger of PW1, when he tried to ward off the assault. The accused is further alleged to have hacked PW2, the wife of PW1, when she tried to intervene, and caused cut injuries above and below the left eye of PW2. The accused is also alleged to have inflicted blows upon the back side of PW2, and caused injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the S.I of Police, Pandalam laid the final report before the learned Magistrate, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C by the petitioner.

4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and marked six documents as Exts.P1 to P6. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence, that the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C, and awarded the punishment as stated above. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and found that the injury sustained by PW1 does not come under the category of grievous hurt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in the impugned order that the medical evidence brought on record did not disclose that the tip portion of the left little finger of PW1 including phalanges was cut off or amputated. Thus, according to the Appellate Court, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to show that the petitioner inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon PW1 or PW2. For the said reason, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, and awarded a modified sentence for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below committed a grave error in finding the petitioner guilty of physically assaulting PW1 and PW2, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the identification of the petitioner as the accused, at the time of examination of those witnesses.

6. PW1 to PW4 were examined by the prosecution to establish the occurrence of the crime. As already stated above, PW1, and PW2, his wife, are the persons injured due to the commission of the offence involved in this case. PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses, who are said to have rushed to the help of PW1 and PW2, hearing their cries when the accused allegedly attacked them. However, PW3 and PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution and discredited the prosecution