Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
RAJU MANJHI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2009
Decided On : 02-08-2018
(b) Criminal trial – Non-identification of accused by witnesses does not falsify prosecution case – Identification parade essentially governed by Section 162, CrPC not a substantive evidence. (Para 14, 15)
1958 CriLJ 698; AIR 1960 SC 1340 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Motive – Not an important factor when abundant direct evidence is available on record. abundant direct evidence is available on record. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
In the intervening night of 11th and 12th January, 1999 a group of assailants consisting 10 to 12 persons including the appellant herein, all aged between 20 to 25 years, barged into the house of one Kamdeo Singh and decamped with golden ornaments, pants and cash. In the protest by the inmates of the house, the assailants caused injuries to Kamdeo Singh, his father-in-law Kameshwar Singh, son Niraj Kumar (PW2), wife Sita Devi and daughter-in-law Reena Devi.
The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 396, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/each, failing which to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
High Court dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The legal document primarily discusses the following key points:
Identification Parade: The identification parade, governed by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not considered substantive evidence. Its purpose is to assist the investigation, and failure to hold such a parade does not render other evidence inadmissible or invalidates the prosecution's case (!) (!) .
Evidence and Confession: Statements and confessional remarks made by the accused, including those recorded outside a Magistrate's presence, can be legally considered if they are linked to the discovery of incriminating evidence and are corroborated by recoveries or other evidence. Such confessions, when made under proper circumstances, can be valid and admissible (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Motive: While motive can be a significant link in circumstantial evidence cases, its absence does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case if there is abundant direct evidence establishing the accused's involvement. The confessional statement and other direct evidence in this case sufficiently established the motive and participation (!) (!) .
Participation and Evidence: The evidence indicates the accused's involvement through confessional statements, recoveries made at his disclosure, and his presence at the scene. Non-identification by witnesses does not necessarily falsify the prosecution case, especially when other corroborative evidence is available (!) (!) (!) .
Credibility of Evidence: The case emphasizes that the credibility of confessional statements and recoveries depends on their circumstances and how they are obtained. Properly obtained confessions and recoveries, supported by other evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
Court’s Appreciation: The courts have appropriately evaluated the evidence, including confessional statements, recoveries, and the circumstances of the case, leading to a justified conviction. The appellate court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence based on the evidence on record (!) (!) .
In summary, the document underscores that identification parade results are not substantive evidence, confessional statements and recoveries are admissible when properly obtained and corroborated, and the absence of motive or witness identification does not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case if direct and reliable evidence is present.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 447 of 2001, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused—appellant herein and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gaya.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as culled out from the case of prosecution are that in the intervening night of 11th and 12th January, 1999 a group of assailants consisting 10 to 12 persons including the appellant herein, all aged between 20 to 25 years, barged into the house of one Kamdeo Singh of the village Banbareya, P.S. Moffasil, District Gaya and decamped with golden ornaments, pants and cash. In the protest by the inmates of the house, the assailants caused injuries to Kamdeo Singh, his fatherinlaw Kameshwar Singh, son Niraj Kumar (PW2), wife Sita Devi and daughterinlaw Reena Devi. The stolen items include golden bangle, golden rings, cash of Rs.5,000/and altogether the worth of stolen property would be Rs.25,000/. At about 2 am in the night, Kamdeo Singh lodged a complaint with the Moffasil police, on the basis of which a case under Section 395/412, IPC was registered against unknown persons. Zamil Ashgar (PW10)—Officer incharge of the Muffasil P.S. took up the investigation and rushed to the place of occurrence. He recorded statement (Ext. 4) of Kamdeo Singh (PW3), prepared injury reports in respect of the inmates of the house and sent them to hospital for treatment. As the injured Kameshwar Singh had succumbed to the injuries, charged under Section 396, IPC was replaced for the offence under Section 395, IPC against the accused. In the course of further investigation, police arrested some of the accused, recorded their statements, recovered some money from them. Out of the six accused persons charged with the offence, one Rameshwari Manjhi @ Umeshwari Manjhi has been declared as absconder. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been implicated falsely, therefore, wanted to be tried.
3. At the trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eleven witnesses. Relying upon the incriminating material as well as depositions and confessional statements of the accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 396, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/each, failing which to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4. All the aggrieved accused persons, including the appellant herein, carried the matter by way of separate appeals before the High Court. By an elaborate judgment which is impugned herein, the High Court dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. That is how the accused Raju Manjhi is in appeal before us.
5. At the outset, we would like to record that whenever this appeal came up for hearing before us, learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate to defend the case of appellant. In accordance therewith, Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on either side and carefully perused the material available on record.
7. A specific argument has been put forward on behalf of the appellant that though there was no concrete proof to establish the participation of the appellant in the alleged crime, the trial Court as well as the High Court believed the prosecution story on flimsy grounds and convicted him. Merely on the basis of prosecution story that when the police raided the house of appellant,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
