04 June 2024 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

Two men in Thrissur, Kerala, who were convicted of attempted murder by a lower court, have been acquitted by an appellate court due to weak identification evidence. The men, identified only as accused Nos. 1 and 4, were accused of assaulting the victim (PW9) with iron rods in April 2003.

The prosecution built its case on the testimony of PW9, who claimed to know the attackers. However, the appellate court found that PW9's identification of the accused in court was flawed. Instead of identifying them by name or specific features, PW9 simply referred to them by their position in the alleged crime (e.g., accused No. 1).

Further complicating the case, there were discrepancies between the names mentioned in the initial police complaint (FIR) and the names PW9 identified in court. The FIR named individuals different from those accused Nos. 1 and 4.

The appellate court also noted that most prosecution witnesses, including those who supposedly witnessed the attack, contradicted the prosecution's narrative during the trial.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that the evidence for identification was insufficient and the possibility of mistaken identity or false implication could not be ruled out. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This case highlights the importance of strong identification evidence in criminal proceedings. When a case relies heavily on eyewitness testimony, clear and accurate identification of the accused is crucial for a successful conviction.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973