Karuppasamy Thevar and Veluthai vs State

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a Revision Petition by the two accused.

The facts are briefly as follows:- On 22-5-1984 at 8:30 A.M., the Sub-Inspectors of Police (P. Ws. 1 to 3) constituting a Prohibition Wing,

conducted a raid in Sooriyaminukki Village in Tirunelveli District. They found inside a mango grove three persons busily engaged in distilling arrack

illicitly. When the police party approached, two persons, namely, the father and the mother ran away, and the son was apprehended. He was a

juvenile. He was tried separately. The father and mother who escaped, upon details given by the son, were arrested by some other Police Officer.

A report was filed by P.W.3 under S. 173 Cr.P.C. stating that an offence under S. 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act appeared to have

been committed by the two accused. They were charged and convicted accordingly and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine

of Rs. 2,000 each. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the Sessions Court of Tirunelveli by judgment dated 14-8-1985. Hence this Revision

Petition.

The case of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that there is no legal evidence against the accused in as much as the only witnesses

are P. Ws. 1 to 3 who conducted the raid. But their evidence is not acceptable since they admitted that the accused were not known to them

before and the accused were not identified by them in an identification parade and they identified the accused for the first time before the Court.

It is argued by the Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor that the accused are no others than the father and mother of the

apprehended juvenile and therefore, in all probability, they should be the accused, as per the information given by the juvenile. No doubt, there is

strong reason to think that the petitioners must be the persons involved in the offence. But conviction is to be based on an evidence legally

acceptable. The information given by the apprehended juvenile while he was in custody would certainly be useful for the purpose of investigation

and arrest. But in this case, the officer who effected the arrest of these accused was not examined and the only witnesses who were examined

were not competent to state that the persons arrayed as accused were those involved in the offence since they were not known to them before and

they have not identified them in a properly conducted identification parade. They could say that they were the persons involved in the offence only

on the basis that they have been arrayed as accused before the Court upon arrest by some other officer on the information given by the

apprehended juvenile. It is therefore, clear that in this case, legal evidence is lacking and the conviction is not sustainable.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.