caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Jayan vs The State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2021Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6767 of 2016)
JAYAN ..… APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF KERALA ….. RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6769 of 2016)
VIJAYAN AND ANR. ……APPELLANTS
v.
STATE OF KERALA ……RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants in these appeals have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 55(a) of Kerala Abkari Act (The
Signature Not Verified
Abkari Act). The appellant/petitioner in Special Leave Petition
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2021.10.22
17:24:43 IST
Reason:
2
No.6767/2016 is the accused No.1. The petitioners/appellants in
Special Leave Petition No. 6769/2016 are the accused Nos.2 and 4.
3. The allegation of the prosecution in brief is that the accused (the
accused Nos.1 to 4) without any licence transported total quantity of
6090 litres of spirit in 174 plastic cans. The allegation of the prosecution
is that the accused No.1 was the owner of the truck by which the spirit
was transported. The case is that the said truck bearing registration
number KLB-7589 was fitted with fake number plates bearing
registration number KLY-730. At the time of the commission of the
offence, the truck was being driven by the accused No.2 and that the
accused Nos.3 and 4 were accompanying the accused No.2 in the
truck.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 25 th July 1999, around
12:30, the said truck was stopped at Mandapathin Kadavu check post
for checking. When the truck was stopped and while it was being
checked, the accused No.2 suddenly started the truck and drove ahead
by damaging the barricade put on the road near the check post. One
Shri Balachandran Nair, a peon working at the check post had climbed
on the top of the truck for inspecting the goods inside the truck. As the
accused No.2 started the truck and went ahead after damaging the
3
barricades, the said Shri Balachandran Nair jumped from the truck and
saved himself. The sub-inspector of police at Kattakkada Police Station
was alerted about the incident. The said sub-inspector Shri R.
Prathapan Nair (PW12) along with the police party proceeded to search
the truck. When they located the truck and stopped the same, the
accused No.2 who was in the driver’s seat in the truck and the accused
Nos.3 and 4 who were present in the truck ran away. The police party,
however, apprehended the accused No.2 who allegedly disclosed to
them that spirit was loaded in the truck in plastic cans. He also
disclosed to the police that the accused No.1 was the owner of the
truck who was his brother-in-law. He disclosed that the accused No. 1
was a shop contractor. Even the accused No.4 was apprehended by
the police. The police party inspected the truck and seized 6090 litres
of spirit which was stored in 174 plastic cans having a capacity of 35
litres each. The police party also found two name plates in the truck
bearing registration number KLB-7589. A seizure mahazar was drawn
and the truck, the plastic cans and the spirit therein were seized by the
police. Thereafter, PW12 returned to the police station and recorded
the First Information Report.
5. According to the prosecution case, the accused No.1 was a toddy
shop contractor and the other accused were his relatives. It is alleged
4
that the accused No.1 purchased a truck from PW3, Shri Rajendra
Prasad and after removing the original number plates on the truck, he
fitted number plates bearing registration number KLY-730. The truck
was used by the accused No.1 for illegally transporting the spirit from
Umasamudram in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that the
samples of the spirit seized by the police were sent for chemical
analysis. It is stated that out of 174 samples, sample Nos.1 to 158 and
167 contained a certain percentage of Ethyl Alcohol. Sample Nos. 159
to 166 and 168 to 174 contained spirit and a poisonous substance
known as “organophosphorus compound” which is used for pest
control.
6. The police could not trace the accused No.3 and therefore, a
charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. The
prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable
under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. They were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of
Rupees one lakh each. In default of payment of fine, they were
sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months
each. The Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred an appeal against the
5
order of conviction. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NO.1
7. Shri R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
accused No.1 has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses. His
basic submission is that the only evidence against the accused No.1 is
of an alleged confession made by the accused No.2. He submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused No.1 was the
owner of the offending truck. He pointed out that PW3 Shri Rajendra
Prasad was examined by the prosecution who deposed that he sold the
truck to the accused No.1. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that
apart from the fact that PW3 did not support the prosecution, even the
record of the Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the name of
the registered owner of the truck was not produced by the prosecution.
He pointed that though the offending truck was having a number plate
bearing number KLY-730, according to the prosecution case, a
photocopy of R.C book of Tata HMC Goods vehicle of registration No.
KLB-7589 was found in the truck as recorded in mahazar. He submitted
that the said photocopy of R.C book allegedly showing the name of the
6
accused No.1 as the owner was not produced before the trial court. He
submitted that no investigation was carried out for ascertaining the
engine number and chassis number of the truck with a view to find out
whether the correct registration number of the truck was KLY-730 or
KLB-7589. He pointed out the notices issued by the investigation officer
to Shri Sajan Mathai, Shri Chandran and PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad
and the response submitted by the said three persons. He pointed out
that notices were issued for inquiring about the ownership of the truck.
He submitted that the said Shri Sajan Mathai in his response claimed
that he sold the said truck to one Shri Makkar Maideen on 4th
September 1998. However, both Shri Sajan and Shri Makkar were not
examined as witnesses. He pointed out that Shri Chandran who was
served with a similar notice claimed that he purchased the truck from
one Shri Ebrahim which was registered in the name of Shri Sajan
Mathai. In the reply, the said Shri Chandran claimed that he sold a
truck to PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad. The learned Senior Counsel
pointed out that Shri Ebrahim and Shri Chandran have not been
examined and PW3 Rajendra Prasad did not support the prosecution.
The learned Senior Counsel would urge that though the accused No.1
has been convicted on the footing that he was the owner of the truck,
there is absolutely no evidence of his ownership adduced by the
7
prosecution. He would, therefore, submit that the appeal filed by the
accused No.1 deserves to be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NOs. 2 AND 4
8. The learned counsel Shri M. Gireesh Kumar submitted that the
entire prosecution case is false. He submitted that though the
prosecution alleged that when the truck was stopped at the check post
where one Shri Balachandran Nair climbed on the top of the truck for
checking the goods, the said person was not examined. He invited our
attention to the evidence of PW13 Shri Madhusudhanan Nair who was
allegedly an independent witness. He purportedly identified the
accused No.2 in the Court on 20th April 2011 when his evidence was
recorded. He submitted that his evidence was recorded nearly 12 years
after the incident. He submitted that Test Identification Parade (T.I
Parade) was not conducted and therefore, the version of PW13 Shri
Madhu that he identified the accused No.2 in the court nearly after
lapse of 12 years cannot be believed. He urged that the same is the
case with other official witnesses who identified the accused No.2 in the
Court after a gap of 11 to 12 years. He submitted that the prosecution
could not prove what was the correct registration number of the truck
and even investigation was not carried out to ascertain the correct
8
registration number. He urged that the first part of the prosecution case
that when the truck was halted at the check post, the accused No.2
started the truck and took it ahead after the damaging barricade has
not been established as the government servant who had climbed over
the truck was not even cited as a witness. He would, therefore, submit
that the entire prosecution case is doubtful and, therefore, the
conviction of the accused No.2 cannot be sustained. He submitted that
there is no evidence adduced against the accused No.4. His
submission is that the conviction of both the accused Nos.2 and 4
cannot be sustained.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROSECUTION
9. Shri Abraham C. Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent stated that identification of the accused No.2 by the
prosecution witnesses in the Court cannot be disbelieved only on the
ground that T.I Parade was not conducted. He submitted that PW13 is
an independent witness whose version has not been shaken in the
cross examination. He submitted that considering the quality of
evidence of PW13 which is supported by the evidence of PW6 Shri
A.S. Krishnan, the Courts below have rightly held that the accused
No.2 was the driver of the offending truck. He submitted that the
9
quantity of liquor containing injurious substances found in the truck has
not been disputed. He, therefore, submitted that the accused No.2 was
clearly guilty of transporting liquor without permission which is a
punishable offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
10. The learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that
PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad issued a reply to the notice served upon
him by the investigation officer stating that he sold the said truck to the
accused No.1 at the cost of Rupees 1,50,000/- in the year 1999. He
submitted that though PW3 may not have supported the prosecution,
his reply to the notice has been marked as an exhibit which proves that
the ownership of the truck vested in the accused No.1 at the relevant
time. The learned counsel submitted that there is no reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Sessions Court
and High Court especially considering the serious nature of the offence.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF
THE ACCUSED NO.1
11. The prosecution has firstly relied upon the mahazar drawn by the
police for recording the seizure of the truck, plastic cans, spirit stored in
plastic cans and other articles. In the mahazar, it is recorded that the
accused No.2 stated that the accused No.1 was the owner of the truck,
10
who was his brother-in-law. He disclosed that the accused No.1 was
the owner of the spirit loaded in the truck. The mahazar has been
drawn by a police officer. The statements of accused No.2 recorded
therein are not admissible in evidence being the alleged confessional
statements of the accused No. 2 made before the police officer.
Therefore, for proving the offence alleged against the accused No. 1,
the statements of the accused No.2 recorded in the mahazar will have
to be kept out of consideration.
12. The second part of the evidence relied upon against the accused
No.1 is the deposition of PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad. He did not
support the prosecution and did not accept that he was the owner of
the truck and that he had sold the said truck to the accused No.1. The
prosecution relied upon the notice dated 26 th December 1999 served by
the investigation officer on PW3 in which it was stated that the truck
bearing registration number KLB-7589 was registered in the name of
Shri Sajan Mathai who sold it to one Shri Chandran and PW3 Shri
Rajendra Prasad purchased the same from Shri Chandran. By the said
notice, the investigation officer called upon PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad
to respond on the ownership of the vehicle. PW3 by his reply dated 26 th
December 1999 informed the investigation officer that he had sold the
said truck to the accused No.1 on the basis of a sale deed. He claimed
11
that the sale deed has been lost. PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad denied the
signature on the said reply. It is pertinent to note that Shri Sajan Mathai
and Shri Chandran who were the alleged prior owners of the truck were
not examined by the prosecution. Surprisingly, no investigation was
made whether the correct registration number of the truck was KLY-730
or KLB-7589. It appears that the prosecution came to the conclusion
that the correct registration number of the truck was KLB-7589 on the
basis of a photocopy of R.C book allegedly found in the seized truck.
However, as admitted by PW12 – the investigation officer, the said
photocopy of the R.C book was not produced by the prosecution.
13. A very shocking aspect of the case is that the prosecution did not
even produce the record of the RTO in respect of the registration of the
truck. Though the chassis and engine number of the truck were
recorded in the mahazar, no investigation was carried out to ascertain
the correct registration number of the offending truck. Thus, the identity
of the truck itself becomes doubtful. The most relevant evidence of the
record of RTO showing the name of the registered owner was withheld
by the prosecution. There is no documentary evidence placed on
record to show that the accused No. 1 was the owner of the offending
truck at the relevant time. There is no other evidence pressed into
service by the prosecution against the accused No.1. Therefore, we are
12
of the considered view that it is a case of no evidence against the
accused No.1. Thus, there was no justification for convicting the
accused No. 1.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE AGAINST ACCUSED NOS.
2 AND 3
14. Now, coming to the case against the accused Nos.2 and 4, apart
from official witnesses, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence
PW13 Shri Madhu who was stated to be an independent witness. The
witness claimed that he was standing by the side of the road when he
saw a truck passing through containing coconut leaves. He claims that
after the truck passed through, a white ambassador car followed the
truck. After some time, policemen came there who enquired with him
whether he had seen a truck containing coconut leaves passing
through. The witness claimed that he followed the police and he saw
the driver running out of the truck after stopping the truck. He stated
that the driver was caught by the police. The witness purported to
identify the accused Nos.2 and 4 who were present in the Court as the
persons who ran away from the truck. In the cross examination, he
accepted that he was not able to identify all the persons whom he had
seen 11 years back. But he claimed that he could identify the accused
13
No.2 and he knew his name. He accepted that before the incident of
25th July 1999, he had not seen the accused and even any time
thereafter, he had not seen the accused. He was examined before the
Court on 20th April 2011. Thus, he deposed before the Court after 11
years and 9 months after the date of the incident. It is pertinent to note
that admittedly T.I Parade was not held and the witness never knew
accused before the incident.
15. It is well settled that T.I Parade is a part of investigation and it is
not a substantive evidence. The question of holding T.I Parade arises
when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification
by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen
the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence
especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the
incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I
Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness
before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may
not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who
has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be
otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness. In
some cases, the Court may be impressed with testimony of the
prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality. In such cases, the
14
testimony of such a witness can be believed. In the present case,
PW13 accepted that he is not able to identify any persons whom he
had seen 11 years back. However, he asserted that he can identify the
accused Nos.2 and 4 though he had seen them for the first time more
than 11 years back on the date of the incident. Therefore, in the facts of
the case, the evidence of PW13 as regards the identification of the
accused Nos.2 and 4 in the Court cannot be accepted.
16. PW5 who was working as ASI at the concerned police station
identified the accused No.2. However, he has not stated that the
accused No.2 who was arrested at the spot was driving the truck. PW6
Shri A. S Krishnan was working as a Sales Tax Inspector at the
relevant time. He stated that the truck was stopped at 12:30p.m at the
check post when the cleaner of the truck claimed that it contained dry
coconut leaves. He claimed that a clerk Shri Balachandran climbed on
the top of the truck for taking search. He claimed that as the driver
started the truck, the said Shri Balachandran jumped from the truck.
The said Shri Balachandran has not been examined as a witness
though he is an employee of the department. The witness claimed that
he reached the place where the truck was stopped. He stated that the
driver of the truck was arrested who was standing there. He identified
15
the driver as the accused No.2. However, the witness has not claimed
that he had seen the accused No.2 driving the truck.
17. PW7, who was head constable attached to the concerned police
station claimed that the truck was stopped and the driver and two
others ran away. He identified the accused No.2 as the person who
was driving the truck. He also identified the accused No.4 as a person
who ran away. However, the witness has not stated he had seen the
accused No.2 driving the truck.
18. PW8 was a police constable working at the concerned police
station. He claimed that after the truck was stopped, three persons in
the truck ran away. One was caught who disclosed that he was the
driver of the truck. He identified the accused No.2 in the Court.
However, he has not seen accused No.2 driving the truck. PW10 Shri
N. George was a police constable attached to the concerned police
station who claimed that after the truck was stopped, three persons
inside the truck ran away and one person who was stopped, claimed to
be the driver of the truck. However, he has not stated that he had seen
the accused No.2 driving the truck. He also identified the accused No. 4
as a person who ran away from the truck.
16
19. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW12 Mr. R. Prathapan Nair who
was the investigation officer. He stated that on 25 th July 1999, he
received information while he was on duty in the police station that a
truck bearing number KLY-730 went passed check post causing
damage to barricades and it was transporting some illegal articles. He
along with the police party went out to locate the truck which was found
near Khadi Board at Kizhamachal and tried to stop it. He alleged that
on seeing the police party, the driver of the truck stopped the same.
According to him, the driver and two others stepped out from the truck
and ran away. The police party could get hold of the driver of the truck
who was arrested. He stated that in the mahazar, the presence of
accused No.2 was noted. He identified the accused No.2 in the Court.
In the cross examination, he stated that as a police vehicle was not
available, a private vehicle was used and the driver of the said vehicle
is not a witness. He accepted that though mahazar records that a copy
of RC book was found in the truck, it is not produced in the Court. He
admitted that though he enquired with RTO, the record of RTO is not
produced in the Court. It is pertinent to note that in the examination
chief, PW12 did not state that he had seen the accused No.2 driving
the truck. Even in this case, the evidence of PW12 has been recorded
more than 11 years after the date of the incident.
17
20. It is very difficult to believe that PW13 who was not knowing the
accused Nos.2 and 4 prior to the incident could identify them in the
Court after lapse of 11 years. That is also the case with all the official
witnesses. The prosecution has chosen not to produce evidence
regarding the correct registration number of the truck and the name of
the registered owner thereof. Therefore, the entire prosecution case
becomes doubtful.
21. In the circumstances, both the appeals must succeed and the
same are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are hereby set
aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences alleged against
them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the
appellants.
…………..…………………J
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………..…………………J
(ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
October 22, 2021.
Comments