2021 (10) TMI 1026 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court acquits appellants in Kerala Abkari Act case due to lack of evidence and procedural lapses.

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for transporting spirit without a license. The court ... Confessional statements recorded to police inadmissible against co-accused - identification evidence after long delay and absence of Test Identification Parade - failure to produce RTO records and vehicle identity undermines proof of ownership - conviction cannot rest on no evidence - concurrent findings of fact subject to interference where there is no evidenceConfessional statements recorded to police inadmissible against co-accused - failure to produce RTO records and vehicle identity undermines proof of ownership - conviction cannot rest on no evidence - Whether there was legally admissible and sufficient evidence to convict the accused No.1 as owner of the offending truck and thereby for the offence under the Abkari Act. - HELD THAT: - The mahazar recorded statements of accused No.2 attributing ownership of the truck to accused No.1; such statements made to police are inadmissible as confessional evidence and therefore cannot be relied upon to convict accused No.1. PW3, who was alleged to have sold the truck to accused No.1, did not support the prosecution and disavowed his reply to the notice; crucial witnesses claiming prior ownership were not examined. The prosecution likewise failed to produce the photocopy of the R.C. book said to have been found in the truck and did not place on record the RTO register or otherwise verify the chassis/engine numbers to establish the correct registration and identity of the vehicle. In the absence of any admissible documentary or oral evidence linking accused No.1 to ownership of the truck or to the seized goods, the conviction of accused No.1 rests on no evidence and cannot be sustained. [Paras 11, 12, 13]Conviction of accused No.1 set aside for want of any admissible evidence proving his ownership of the truck; acquitted.Identification evidence after long delay and absence of Test Identification Parade - conviction cannot rest on no evidence - concurrent findings of fact subject to interference where there is no evidence - Whether the evidence was sufficient and reliable to sustain the convictions of accused Nos.2 and 4 for transporting spirit without licence. - HELD THAT: - An independent witness (PW13) purported to identify accused Nos.2 and 4 in court more than eleven years after the incident though he admitted he had not known them before and T.I. Parade was not held; such delayed in-court identification without prior acquaintance is a weak form of evidence. Official witnesses identified accused Nos.2 and 4 but did not state that they actually saw accused No.2 driving the truck; the key government servant said to have climbed onto the truck to inspect the goods was not examined. The investigation also omitted to prove the correct registration and ownership of the vehicle by producing RTO records or verifying chassis/engine particulars. Considering the prolonged delay in recording testimony, the absence of T.I. Parade, the non-examination of critical witnesses, and the gaps in vehicle identification, the evidence against accused Nos.2 and 4 is rendered doubtful and insufficient to sustain conviction. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]Convictions of accused Nos.2 and 4 cannot be sustained on the available evidence and are set aside; acquitted.Final Conclusion: Both appeals are allowed. The impugned convictions and sentences are set aside; the appellants are acquitted of the offences alleged, their bail bonds stand discharged/cancelled and any fine paid shall be refunded. Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.2. Ownership and identity of the truck used for transporting spirit.3. Reliability of witness testimonies and identification of accused.4. Admissibility of evidence and procedural lapses.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act:The appellants were convicted for transporting 6090 litres of spirit without a license, punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants transported the spirit in a truck with fake number plates.2. Ownership and Identity of the Truck:The prosecution claimed that the accused No.1 was the owner of the truck used for transporting the spirit. However, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the ownership. The prosecution's reliance on a statement from PW3, who allegedly sold the truck to accused No.1, was not supported by documentary evidence. The Regional Transport Office (RTO) records were not produced, and there was no investigation into the truck's engine and chassis numbers to verify the correct registration number. This lack of evidence led to doubts about the truck's identity and ownership.3. Reliability of Witness Testimonies and Identification of Accused:The prosecution's case relied heavily on witness testimonies, particularly from PW13, an independent witness, and several police officers. However, the identification of the accused in court occurred more than 11 years after the incident, without any Test Identification Parade (T.I Parade) being conducted. The court noted that identification after such a long period, especially without prior acquaintance and without a T.I Parade, is a weak piece of evidence. The witness PW13 admitted difficulty in identifying individuals after 11 years, further weakening the prosecution's case.4. Admissibility of Evidence and Procedural Lapses:The court found significant procedural lapses in the prosecution's case. The mahazar (seizure record) included statements from accused No.2 implicating accused No.1, but these statements were inadmissible as they were made to a police officer. The prosecution also failed to produce crucial documentary evidence, such as the R.C book and RTO records, which could have substantiated the ownership and identity of the truck. The absence of these documents and the failure to examine key witnesses (e.g., Shri Balachandran Nair who climbed the truck) further undermined the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the ownership of the truck and the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification of the accused based on witness testimonies was deemed unreliable due to the long gap between the incident and the court proceedings. The procedural lapses and lack of crucial evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants. The impugned judgment and orders were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the offences alleged against them. Their bail bonds were cancelled, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded.