Acquittal Upheld Where Identification of Accused is Belated and Lacks Test Identification Proceedings

On June 11, 2004, near village Joyla, a bus belonging to Khalsa Motors collided with a jeep, after which an angry mob of 50 to 100 people allegedly vandalized and set the bus on fire.

The petitioner-complainant filed a written report, leading to a charge sheet against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 436 of the IPC.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, acquitted the respondents on September 25, 2006, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The petitioner challenged this acquittal through a revision petition, contending that ocular testimony was improperly discarded.

1. Whether the trial court committed a patent illegality or perversity in its appreciation of evidence that warrants interference under revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the delayed identification and testimony of witnesses, in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), could form a valid basis for conviction.

The Court applied the principles governing revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., noting that the scope of interference against an order of acquittal is extremely limited unless the findings are manifestly perverse or result in a miscarriage of justice.

It relied on the evidentiary standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and the necessity of lawful identification proceedings (Test Identification Parade) when witnesses are not previously acquainted with the accused.

It observed that under Section 436 of the IPC (mischief by fire), specific overt acts must be established by reliable evidence.

The Court found that the trial court’s judgment was based on a rational appreciation of evidence. It noted that the FIR did not name the accused and the complainant was initially unaware of the perpetrators' identities.

Crucially, a key witness (PW-04) turned hostile.

The testimony of the bus conductor (PW-05) was deemed unreliable because he was not acquainted with the accused and their names were only disclosed to him four months later without a TIP.

Other witnesses (PW-07 and PW-08) were also discredited due to an inordinate and unexplained delay in recording their statements.

The Court reasoned that in a chaotic mob setting, the prosecution failed to prove specific overt acts by the respondents.

It further emphasized that the State did not appeal the acquittal, narrowing the revisional scope.

The findings were deemed plausible and borne out by the record. Consequently, the High Court answered the issues in the negative, dismissed the revision petition, and upheld the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.