IMPORTANT POINTS
Principles with regard to section 164 stated.
Asking the accused to give his specimen signature or writing for use by handwriting expert is not per se illegal.
Intention behind the offence is an important factor to decide about death sentence.
There is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3 and 9 – In the absence of any independent corroboration like TIP held by judicial Magistrate, evidence of eye-witnesses as to the identification of the appellants/accused for the first time before the trial Court generally cannot be accepted. (Paras 11 and 12)
        (b) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – In view of minor inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same cannot be accepted in toto – However, certain events and incidents, being reliable and admissible, can be accepted. (Para 17)
        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 – Section 164 – Principles with regard to section 164 stated. (Para 29)
        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 164 – Confessional statement exculpatory – Later witness retracting from the confession – Safeguards like various warnings/cautions required to be given to the accused not adhered to – Various procedural lapses noticed by High Court – In view of the accused coming from police custody and making confession, undue influence or coercion cannot be ruled out – Such confessions cannot be relied upon. (Para 32)
        (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 and Article 20(3), Constitution of India – Asking the accused to give his specimen signature or writing for use by handwriting expert is not per se illegal. (Para 35)
        (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 164 – Accused identified in the trial court – No TIP conducted – Accused writing two letters to Sessions Judge admitting his guilt – Constitute reliable evidence. (Para 36)
        (g) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Accused admitting his guilt during examination u/s 313, Cr. P.C. – making confession of his guilt in letters to his sister-in-law as well as to the Sessions Judge – Identified by witnesses in court – Absconded after the incident and avoiding arrest (incriminating conduct u/s 8, Evidence Act) – Can be relied for conviction. (Paras 39 to 41)
        (h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Death sentence – Rarest of rare case – Although the deceased were burnt to death while sleeping, the intention was not to kill but to teach a lesson to the Missionary about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity – High Court rightly converted the death sentence into life imprisonment. (Para 44)
        (i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – In absence of definite assertion from the prosecution about specific role and involvement, High Court rightly acquitted the accused persons. (Para 45)
        (j) Constitution of India – Preamble and Article 25– There is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other. (Para 47)
       Facts of the case:
        1. These appeals relate to a sensational case of triple murder of an Australian Christian Missionary – Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons, namely, Philip Staines, aged about 10 years and Timothy Staines aged about 6 years.
        2. Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2005 is filed by Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh against the final judgment and order dated 19.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant upholding the conviction and commuting the death sentence passed by the trial Court into that of life imprisonment.
        3. Against the same judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 2007 is filed by Mahendra Hembram challenging his life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
        4. Against the acquittal of rest of the accused by the High Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1357-1365 of 2005.
       Finding of the Court:
        High Court has taken a correct view of the matter. No interference is warranted.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment extensively discusses the strict compliance required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for recording confessions and the dangers of coercion or police influence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the admissibility and evidentiary weight of eye-witness identification, emphasizing the weak nature of dock identifications and the need for prior TIP or corroboration (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It applies the "rarest of rare" death penalty standard, upholding that death sentences require careful consideration of intent, circumstances, and proportionality, and often converting to life imprisonment unless warranted (!) (!) (!) . - The case discusses the use of confessional letters and extra-judicial statements as corroboration, while acknowledging cautions about voluntariness and admissibility in light of Section 30 of the Evidence Act for co-accused confessions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It affirms that there is no justification for interfering with religious beliefs or incitement to violence, framing constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 20(3) in the context of the case’s outcome (!) (!) . - The High Court’s acquittals of several accused are sustained due to lack of reliable corroboration, while upholding specific convictions for A1 and A3 based on admissible evidence (!) (!) . - The judgment notes procedural lapses in 164 Cr.P.C. recordings but ultimately relies on the totality of evidence to sustain convictions for the key appellants (!) (!) (!) .

What is the proper handling and voluntariness assessment of confessions under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in capital cases?

What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of eye-witness identification, including dock identifications, TIP, and photo identification in murder appeals?

What constitutes the "rarest of rare" standard for death sentences and how should appellate courts review proportionality and aggravating/mitigating factors in such cases?

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) These appeals relate to a sensational case of triple murder of an Australian Christian Missionary - Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons, namely, Philip Staines, aged about 10 years and Timothy Staines aged about 6 years.

2) Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2005 is filed by Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh against the final judgment and order dated 19.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant upholding the conviction and commuting the death sentence passed by the trial Court into that of life imprisonment. Against the same judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 2007 is filed by Mahendra Hembram challenging his life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Against the acquittal of rest of the accused by the High Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “the CBI”) filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1357-1365 of 2005. Since all the appeals arose from the common judgment of the High Court and relating to the very same incident that took place in the midnight of 22.01.1999/23.01.1999, they are being disposed of by this judgment.

3) The case of the prosecution is as under:

(a) Graham Stuart Staines, a Christian Missionary from Australia, was working among the tribal people especially lepers of the State of Orissa. His two minor sons, namely, Philip Staines and Timothy Staines were burnt to death along with their father in the midnight of 22.01.1999/23.01.1999. The deceased-Graham Staines was engaged in propagating and preaching Christianity in the tribal area of interior Orissa. Manoharpur is a remote tribal village under the Anandapur Police Station of the District Keonjhar of Orissa. Every year, soon after the Makar Sankranti, the said missionary used to come to the village to conduct the Jungle Camp. Accordingly, on 20.01.1999, the deceased-Staines, along with his two minor sons Philip and Timothy and several other persons came to the village Manoharpur. They conducted the camp for next two days by hosting a series of programmes.

(b) On 22.01.1999, the Missionary Team, as usual conducted different programmes in the village near the Church and retired for the day. Graham Staines and his two minor sons slept in their vehicle parked outside the Church. In the mid- night, a mob of 60-70 people came to the spot and set fire to the vehicle in which the deceased persons were sleeping. The mob prevented the deceased to get themselves out of the vehicle as a result of which all the three persons got burnt in the vehicle. The local police was informed about the incident on the next day.

(c) Since the local police was not able to proceed with the investigation satisfactorily, on 23.04.1999, the same was handed over to the State Crime Branch. Even the Crime Branch failed to conduct the investigation, ultimately, the investigation was transferred to CBI.

(d) On 03.05.1999, the investigation was taken over by the CBI. After thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed by the CBI on 22.06.1999. On the basis of charge sheet, as many as 14 accused persons were put to trial. Apart from these accused, one minor was tried by Juvenile Court.

(e) The prosecution examined as many as 55 witnesses whereas in defence 25 witnesses were examined. Series of documents were exhibited by the prosecution. By a common judgment and order dated 15.09.2003 and 22.09.2003, Sessions Judge, Khurda convicted all the accused and sentenced them for offences punishable under various sections. The death sentence was passed against Dara Singh- appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2005 and others were awarded sentence of life imprisonment.

(f) The death reference and the appeals filed by the convicted persons were heard together by the High Court and were disposed of by common judgment dated 19.05.2005 concluding that the witnesses are not trustworthy and no credence should be given to their statemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 85

What is the proper handling and voluntariness assessment of confessions under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in capital cases?

What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of eye-witness identification, including dock identifications, TIP, and photo identification in murder appeals?

What constitutes the "rarest of rare" standard for death sentences and how should appellate courts review proportionality and aggravating/mitigating factors in such cases?

Cases Referred (19)