IMPORTANT POINT
Correct identification of the accused and recovery of weapon at the instance of accused needs to be established and corroborated by medical evidence for conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC.

ORDER :

1. The appellants herein (four in number) have been convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced to death by the learned trial Court which has been affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the present appeals by special leave have been filed.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14th February, 2009 at about 11.45 p.m. the Police Sub Inspector/Circle Inspector Hanamantraya s/o Bhimaraya (P.W.26), Saidapur Police Station of Yadgir District received information of multiple murders in Gondadagi village. Proceeding to the spot, P.W.26 found Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) lying near a shed with injuries. She (P.W.7) was removed to Raichur Government Hospital for treatment, whereafter, P.W. 26 recorded the statement of one Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6), the complainant, who was present at the spot. The said statement was treated as a complaint.

3. In the complaint, it was stated that at about 9.30 p.m. when the complainant (P.W.6) was in his shed watching television, Basannagouda (since deceased) joined him. The aforesaid person, according to the complainant, left the shed at about 11.00 p.m. to sleep in his own shed. Thereafter, according to the complainant (P.W.6), he heard commotion and going there he found that Basannagouda had been murdered and he was lying on a cot outside the shed. Looking into the shed the complainant (P.W.6) found/heard people conversing in Telugu language and thereafter he saw a blaze inside the shed. At that point of time, according to the complainant (P.W.6), three persons had come out from the shed wearing vests and shorts. Going inside the shed, the complainant (P.W.6) found Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) lying on the floor with severe injuries and her two sons Shivareddy and Srinivasreddy lying dead/murdered. Thereafter, the Police was informed and investigation commenced in the course of which the accused appellants were arrested. Their statements allegedly leading to the recovery were recorded. On completion of investigation the accused appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 397, 302, 201, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) and under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act.

4. The learned trial Court and the first appellate Court having held the accused appellants guilty, inter alia, of the offence of commission of murder and having imposed sentence of death the present appeals have been filed before this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record.

6. Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) and Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) are the eye 5 witnesses to the occurrence. Both have given a graphic and vivid description of the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused persons.

7. Even if we are to accept the aforesaid part of the evidence of Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) and Suryakanthamma (P.W.7), what would be further required is proof of identification of the accused persons to sustain the case of the prosecution that it is the accused who had committed the crime.

8. So far as the identification of the accused persons is concerned, the Test Identification Parade ("T.I.P." for short) was held after 27 days of the arrest of the accused. Both the courts below accepted the delay by taking note of the grounds assigned, namely, the requirement to complete some procedural formalities. Even if the period of delay in holding the T.I.P. is to be discounted, what would be required is the satisfaction of the Court that the eye-witnesses (P.W.6 and P.W.7) had correctly identified the accused appellants to be the perpetrators of the crime. This would be, particularly, significant in view of the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused persons and the deceased as well as the eyewitnesses were not known to each other from before.

9. Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) in his deposition had very clearly stated that he was told in the Police Station that the four accused