Proper identification of accused witnesses is crucial for confirming guilt, as highlighted by the court's decision.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C No.294/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Sections 341 and 326 I.P.C, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. In the appeal filed as Crl.A No.229/2012, the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thalassery set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under I.P.C, and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under I.P.C. 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 22.01.2007 at about 4:45 p.m, the petitioner, along with three other accused, wrongfully restrained PW1 in front of the bus stop near the Mosque at Punnol, and inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon him by hitting with iron pipe. The reason for the aforesaid assault is said to be the political animosity of the accused.

4. The petitioner alone was convicted in the trial, since the second accused was reported to be no more, and the other two accused went absconding. The prosecution relied on the evidence of 10 witnesses, examined as PW1 to PW10, and four documents marked as Exts.P1 to P4, in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner and the other accused. PW1 to PW5 were the witnesses examined for proving the occurrence of the crime. However, PW2 to PW4 turned hostile and discredited the prosecution story. PW1, the injured, testified before the Trial Court about the criminal acts attributed to the petitioner and the other accused. PW5, an autorickshaw driver, stated before the Trial Court about the physical assault of the accused hitting PW1 with a weapon which looked like a stick. However, he further stated that, at that time he did not understand the identity of the victim, who suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. The Appellate Court found the above statement of PW5 totally contradictory to the statement which he gave to the investigating officer, as revealed from the evidence of PW9. For the above reason, the Appellate Court concluded that PW5 had no occasion to see the incident. However, the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the evidence on record was sufficient to show that the petitioner, along with the other accused, inflicted blows upon PW1 with an iron pipe, and caused grievous hurt.

5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that there was no identification of the petitioner as the accused, by PW1 at the time when he was examined before the Trial Court. The prosecution did not venture to put any question to PW1 as to whether the petitioner, who was standing in the dock, was the person whom he referred to as the first accused, who mounted physical assault upon him by inflicting blows with an iron pipe. It is curious to note that no effort for dock identification of the petitioner was made, though the prosecution took care to get the weapon of offence identified as MO1. True that, PW5 had identified the petitioner in Court during the course of his examination as witness. However, the aforesaid identification of the petitioner by PW5 is of no help for the prosecution since the Appellate Court has concluded that PW5 had no occasion to see the incident. The failure of the prosecution to get the petitioner identified by PW1