15. PW-15 is the investigation officer in this case. It is quite unfortunate that the investigation officer did not resort to Test Identification Parade in spite of the fact that the accused persons in this case are unknown to the victim. In his entire evidence, PW-15 does not say as to how he came to know that A1 to A3 had committed the crime. The investigation officer merely states that he heard that the accused persons were roaming around and thereafter, he arrested them and they were remanded to judicial custody. The investigation officer probably thought that mere recovery of the material object was enough to convict any person, who is shown as accused person before the Court. The accused persons were neither identified during the course of investigation nor they were identified by any of the witnesses in the Court.
16. The trial Court had proceeded further in this case merely on the basis of recovery and insofar as the identity of the accused persons is concerned, the trial Court has rendered its findings on mere surmises and assumptions. There is no question of identifying an accused person on assumptions and it involves a very important right guaranteed to any person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and punishing a person even without proper identity, will directly impinge upon the liberty that is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case of this nature, the Court should not be swayed by mere emotions and the Court must necessarily ensure that the accused persons are properly identified. If such a procedure is not followed, anybody can be made as an accused person in a given case on mere recovery and in all probabilities, the person, who is shown as an accused will have nothing to do with the case. On many occasions, the police find it convenient to bring in some habitual criminal and show him as an accused in the case. Such line of investigation should never be encouraged and just because someone is a habitual criminal, that does not mean that he must be held responsible for every crime that takes place in the society. Such attitude will cause a dent in the criminal justice system and will make the officers ineffective when they investigate serious crimes.
Accused Acquitted.
PARTY: Vadivel S/o.Venkattan vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, A.Pallipatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District. Crime No.326 of 2013 – Criminal Appeal No: 668 of 2015 – 31.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1030528
