Judgment :- 1. This appeal against acquittal arises against the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, passed in S.C.No.248 of 1996 on 30.10.1996. The respondents/accused stood trial for offences under Section 120(B) r/w 149, 143, 148, 449, 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined as many as 51 witnesses and marked 58 exhibits. M.Os.1 to 30 were marked. On consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the trial Court passed judgment of acquittal of all the accused in the case. Hence, this appeal. 2. The case relates to a gruesome attack on Sri.K. Vijayan, presently a Senior Advocate. At about 4.00 a.m. on 21.7.1994 Mr.Vijayan was leaving his residence towards proceeding to the Airport by car, intending to travel to Delhi to attend a matter before the Supreme Court, wherein he has challenged an enactment passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu providing for 69% reservation. When he was about to enter his car, he was set upon, as per the complaint, by four persons. Mr. Vijayan had suffered the following injuries: "Fracture both bone 1/3 Right Forearm Split Impression fracture tibial condyle Fracture head of 2nd MC Fracture base of 4th MC 2" Laceration in the scalp" 3. It was the case of the prosecution that A-14 and A-1, then holding office as Minister and a political party functionary were inimically disposed towards the victim P.W.2 since he had tried to challenge the law providing for 69% reservation and therefore, at their instigation and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, four of the accused set upon him and caused the said injuries. 4. It is to be stated that excepting P.W.1, the defacto complainant, father of P.W.2, P.W.2, the injured and P.Ws.31 to 34 doctors who have spoken to the Accident Registers and the officers involved in the investigation i.e., P.Ws.43, 46 to 49, all other witnesses have turned hostile. Nothing in favour of the prosecution is to be gleaned on perusal of the testimony of the hostile witnesses. 5.We have heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Appellant, Sri B.Kumar learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and learned Senior Counsel Sri. V. Padmanabhasn for respondents 2 to 14. Accused Nos.12 and 14 have died pending appeal. 6. Nothing in favour of the prosecution is to be gleaned on perusal of the testimony of the hostile witnesses. 5.We have heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Appellant, Sri B.Kumar learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and learned Senior Counsel Sri. V. Padmanabhasn for respondents 2 to 14. Accused Nos.12 and 14 have died pending appeal. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor first addressed us on the standing and repute of P.W.2, a Senior Advocate towards informing that his evidence easily is not to be easily ignored. He would also submit that the grounds of appeal have been prepared by his predecessor in office, now deceased, who had been held in high regard as a person of great merit and therefore the same called for ready acceptance. We are afraid that judicial discipline requires us to desist from proceeding in the manner advised. Special Public Prosecutor then submitted that P.W.2 had no animus against the accused persons and therefore, his identification of the accused No.5, 7, 9, 12 and 13 in Court ought to have been accepted by the trial Court. In this regard, he placed strong reliance on Ground No.8 , which reads as follows: "8.) The learned Judge failed to not that the P.W.2 has ample opportunity to observe the features of assailants and register the same in his mind and that having regard to his status in life and the fact that he has no animus against assailants, ought to have accepted P.W.2's evidence regarding identification of accused/respondents 5,7,9,12,13 in Court." 7. It was his further submission that the trial Court had nowhere rejected the evidence of P.W.2, nor questioned its credibility. The trial Court had rendered a finding of acquittal only faulting the procedure adopted by the prosecution. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.B. Kumar submitted that the 8th charge in the case, was framed against A-1 and A-14 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 120 (B) r/w 307 I.P.C.with the object of preventing P.W.2 from attending the hearing before the Supreme Court in cases wherein he has challenged the State enactment providing 69% reservation. No particulars as to place and time was stated therein. Mere suggestion of motive would not be sufficient to establish conspiracy. He referred this Court to the evidence of persons who had been examined towards establishing the charge of conspiracy and informed that all of them had turned hostile. No particulars as to place and time was stated therein. Mere suggestion of motive would not be sufficient to establish conspiracy. He referred this Court to the evidence of persons who had been examined towards establishing the charge of conspiracy and informed that all of them had turned hostile. Not a single witness has whispered a word about the involvement of A1. The statement of these witnesses viz., P.Ws.13, 17, 18, 21, 28, 36 and 42 had been recorded in Tamil. The original manuscripts had been destroyed as admitted by P.Ws.46 and 47 investigating officers. The trial Court had observed that since the witnesses had turned hostile, no occasion for comparison of their evidence in Court with their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. arose. It was the finding of the trial Court that A-14 had been implicated in the case. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a charge of criminal conspiracy, a substantial offence was to be proved as any other offence. None of the witnesses had spoken to A1 or for that matter any of the other accused visiting the lodge where the conspiracy allegedly was hatched. 9. Sri V. Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel for R.2 to R.8 would submit that in circumstances where P.W.2 had pointed a finger only against A-5,A-7, A-9, A-12 and A13, the considerations in this appeal would have to be restricted only to their alleged role. In the instant case, it was admitted both by P.W.2 as also P.W.46 that immediately after arrest, these accused persons were taken and produced before P.W.2 towards having his affirmation as to whether they had been present in the scene of crime and only thereafter had they been produced before the Magistrate for purposes of remand. In such circumstance and in admitted circumstance, where no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution, the identification of these accused persons by P.W.2 for the first time in Court would serve no purpose whatsoever. Learned Senior Counsel would draw attention of this Court to the fact that at the first instance, P.W.2 had informed of one Welding Kumar having been involved in the incident after having seen such person on television and a Tamil daily by name "Nettrikkan". Thereafter, P.W.2 had gone back and affirmed that he informed over phone of having mistakenly identified Welding Kumar. It is the evidence of P.W.46 that P.W.2 had never contacted him over phone. Thereafter, P.W.2 had gone back and affirmed that he informed over phone of having mistakenly identified Welding Kumar. It is the evidence of P.W.46 that P.W.2 had never contacted him over phone. In Court, P.W.2 had in place of Welding Kumar, identified A5. It was submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 contained contradictions. The possibility of P.W.2 being wrong in his identification of the accused loomed large. 10. Learned Senior counsels submitted that P.W.46 knew only Malayalam and hence, he had taken the assistance of P.W.43 and 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded in Tamil from the witnesses. It is to be remembered that they had been rendered in Tamil. P.W.46 admits to preparing English versions of the 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses and of having destroyed the Tamil manuscripts. Therefore, the primary document has been done away with. The non-availability of the same caused severe prejudice to the accused in that the comparison of the contents there of with the evidence of witnesses in Court towards testing their veracity has been denied to the accused. It was the admission of P.W.46 that he knew that the accused could not be taken and shown to the witnesses. P.W.47 had stated that original 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements would be preserved but in this case they had been destroyed. P.W.43 had been in charge of the investigation for over a year but could unearth nothing. Thereafter P.W.46 had taken over and in a flurry of activity, the accused have been arrested, investigation has been proceeded with and charge sheet has been filed. According to P.W.2 he had addressed two letters on 4.7.1995 to P.W.43 and the Special Crime Branch, CBI relating to the allegation of involvement of one Welding kumar. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that these vital documents have been suppressed by the prosecution and thus the prosecution case against A5 would fall to the ground. Learned Senior Counsel also took umbrage to P.W.46 having effected recoveries at the instance of the accused and thereafter having arrested them. It was submitted that in respect of 2 M.Os., no Form 95 had been submitted before the Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that A-13 was sought to be identified through footprints upon his chappels. The identification of foot prints has been held to be improper and unreliable. 11. It was submitted that in respect of 2 M.Os., no Form 95 had been submitted before the Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that A-13 was sought to be identified through footprints upon his chappels. The identification of foot prints has been held to be improper and unreliable. 11. Both learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have cited before us very many decisions in support of their contentions. 12. As in any other appeal so too in an appeal against acquittal, we would have to reappreciate the evidence before us as a whole. We would not loose sight of the fact that the presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the Trial court. We find that the prosecution has precious little to go on. It would be quite unsafe to rely upon the identification of some of the accused by P.W.2 in court, particularly where such accused have been shown to him after arrest and before remand and where he himself has admitted to wrongly identifying one welding kumar as one of the accused. These considerations, taken along with other contentions of learned Senior counsel for the respondents, each of which contention we find force in, irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal well is merited. 13. Further reason for our non interference with the finding of the trial court is that in appeal we would be precluded from interfering therewith even in a case where the finding the trial court presents one possible view of the matter and we are inclined towards another. Keeping this in mind we would inform: 1. It is admitted both by P.W.2 and P.W.46 that immediately on arrest the Accused 7, 9, 12, were produced before him for the purpose of P.W.2 identifying them and thereafter they were produced before the Magistrate. This court is of the view that such admission puts at nought their identification in Court by P.W.2 Such is the view expressed also by the trial Court. In many a case, it has been held that Test Identification Parade absolutely is of no use where accused earlier have been shown to the witnesses. It is not difficult to draw a parallel in the present case. 2. In many a case, it has been held that Test Identification Parade absolutely is of no use where accused earlier have been shown to the witnesses. It is not difficult to draw a parallel in the present case. 2. The admitted destruction of the manuscripts of 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements in Tamil have been held to be bad in law and of having caused prejudice to the accused. We cannot but agree. The purpose of furnishing copies of 161(3) Cr.P.C statements of witnesses to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.is salutary. It enables the defence to draw contradictions between the evidence tendered in Court and the statements made before the investigating officer. It would be foolhardy to place reliance upon the translation of statements from Tamil to English effected by P.W.46. Even if we do not in the least suspect the honesty of the investigating officer, prudence require us not to rely upon a typed translated English version of 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statements. 3. The trial Court is of the view that there is nothing in support of the criminal conspiracy that was alleged. It rightly has observed that the statement of one of the accused regarding the involvement of other accused after the alleged conspiracy stands completed, serves no useful purpose. As has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, there is no evidence worth mention on the alleged criminal conspiracy. 14. The Court below has expressed its reservations on the recoveries effected as also the motive suggested by the prosecution. We do not think it necessary to dwell at length on such aspects since we find that the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court on the above 3 mentioned aspects are well merited and they in themselves would justify the acquittal of the accused. 15. In concluding the present judgment, we are constrained to make certain observations. The C.B.I is considered the premier investigation agency in the country. Many a common man seeking justice knocks the door of the higher courts with ardent desire and fervent hope that their case would merit investigation by the C.B.I. If and when granted their wish, they rest content that investigation by C.B.I. would result in justice being done to their cause. Many a common man seeking justice knocks the door of the higher courts with ardent desire and fervent hope that their case would merit investigation by the C.B.I. If and when granted their wish, they rest content that investigation by C.B.I. would result in justice being done to their cause. While so, it hardly is acceptable that an investigating officer of this premier agency would place accused before a witness in the case towards satisfying himself that he is proceeding on proper lines. That, is the purpose of conducting test identification parade. In fact, the trial Court laments that while the original investigating agency intended to conduct a Test Identification Parade, the CBI has failed to do so and this in all probability has worked in aid of the accused. We again are unable to accept a position where the investigating officer admits to the destruction of original manuscript of the statements recorded u/s. 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Infact P.W.46 merely does not stop there. He goes on to say that it is a practice of administrative convenience that the statements recorded by hand during the examination of witnesses are destroyed after typing them. This contention is a knife that cuts both ways. If true, it reflects poorly on the investigating agency. If false, it informs that the witness has no compunctions about not speaking the truth. Given the ineptitude reflected in this case, we consider it proper and accordingly direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Director C.B.I, New Delhi. The appeal is dismissed.