Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1352

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Raja – Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018
Govindaraj And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State By The Inspector Of Police, Singarapattai Police Station, Krishnagiri District – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1608-1609 of 2018
Decided on : 10-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Bhavya Vijay Tangri, Kaustubh Shukla, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, K. Paari Vendhan, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Sabarish Subramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):M. Yogesh Kanna, Meha Aggarwal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
What is important is identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied upon by Court.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 109, 120B, 394, 395, 396 and 449 – Dacoity with murder – Conviction and sentence – TIP was held in which PWs identified concerned accused – TIP was conducted in presence and under supervision of Sub-Judge – In view of fact that each of eyewitnesses had suffered number of injuries in transaction, it can safely be inferred that every one of them had sufficient opportunity to observe accused to have an enduring impression of identity of assailants – It is not as if witnesses had seen assailants in a mob and from some distance – Going by injuries, contact with accused must have been from a close distance – There was no delay in holding test identification parade and delay, if any, was attributable to fact that one of accused was in judicial custody whose presence had to be secured only after appropriate permissions from court – What is important is identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied upon by Court – Considering totality of circumstances on record, presence and participation of accused Nos.1 to 6 stood proved through eyewitness account – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 18, 22, 23 and 25)
(B) Criminal Law – Identification – What is substantive piece of evidence of identification of an accused is evidence given during trial – However, by the time witnesses normally step into box to depose, there would be substantial time gap between date of incident and actual examination of witnesses – If accused or suspects were known to witnesses from before and their identity was never in doubt, lapse of time may not qualitatively affect evidence about identification of such accused, but difficulty may arise if accused were unknown – In such cases, question may arise about correctness of identification by witnesses – Lapse of time between stage when witnesses had seen accused during occurrence and actual examination of witnesses may be such that identification by witnesses for first time in box may be difficult for court to place complete reliance on – In order to lend assurance that witnesses had, in fact, identified accused or suspects at first available opportunity, TIP which is part of investigation affords a platform to lend corroboration to ultimate statements made by witnesses before Court – However, what weightage must be given to such TIP is a matter to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case – If material on record sufficiently indicates that reasons for gaining an enduring impression of identity on mind and memory of witnesses are available on record, matter stands in a completely different perspective – In such cases even non-holding of identification parade would not be fatal to case of prosecution. (Paras 15 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Dacoity with murder. Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 (preferred by original Accused No. 1) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 2018 (preferred by original Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6) challenge the common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 of 2012 and 92 of 2013 preferred by said accused as well as original Accused No. 4 (who is stated to have expired since then).
Findings of Court:
What is important is identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied upon by the Court. Considering totality of circumstances on record, presence and participation of Accused Nos.1 to 6 stood proved through eyewitness account.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 (preferred by original Accused No. 1) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 2018 (preferred by original Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6) challenge the common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 of 2012 and 92 of 2013 preferred by said accused as well as original Accused No. 4 (who is stated to have expired since then).

2. The case of the prosecution as set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the judgment under appeal is as under:-

2.3 Around 09.30 p.m., they went to the respective place to sleep. When they were fast asleep, around 01.00 a.m. on 28.05.1999, these appellants (accused 1 to 6) came to the house of the deceased in order to commit dacoity. They first went into the tractor shed and started mounting attack with deadly weapons on the deceased. The deceased cried for help which awakened P.W.2. These accused indiscriminately attacked P.W.2 also. She raised alarm and cried for help. On hearing the cry of the deceased and P.W.2, P.W.1 who was sleeping in the room situated on the western portion of the house, opened the main door from inside and came out. On seeing him, some of the accused attacked him with deadly weapons like knife and wooden log. Since the attack was so violent, unable to bear the same and in order to avoid further blows being made, P.W.1 crying for help, tried to rush inside the house. By the time, on hearing the alarm raised, P.W.3 came out of the house. Some of the accused, attacked him with weapons. He sustained bleeding injuries. With a view to save himself from further attack, he rushed into the house and went into the room where his wife was sleeping. The assailants did not stop. They gave a chase, entered into the said room and indiscriminately attacked P.W.3 and his wife (P.W.4) with weapons. Both sustained a number of bleeding injuries. P.W.5 who was sleeping at the Pial, awakened by the cry, rushed out. He was also attacked. Raising alarm, he rushed towards the house of one Thaluka Goundar. These assailants, barged into the house, looted the properties. Number of jewels worn by the witnesses were snatched away by the accused. They broke open the steel bureau in the house and committed theft of the jewels. All happened with a short time. Even before the villagers could gather at the place of occurrence, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with decamped valuable jewels and other articles. P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the deceased were struggling for life due to the bleeding injuries. The villagers immediately rushed all of them to the Government hospital at Uthangarai.”

“… …Mr. Sengoda Goundar was the father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.3 and the daughter-in-law of the deceased. P.W.5 is the grandson of the deceased and P.W.2. P.Ws. 3 and 4 had a child also and all of them were living together under one roof in Nallavumpatti village.

2.2 On 27.05.1999, P.Ws. 1 to 5, after having their dinner, had fallen asleep. The house of P.W.1 and others is facing towards west. P.W.1 was sleeping in the room situated on the northern portion of the house. P.Ws. 3 and 4 along with the child were sleeping in the room situated on the southern portion of the house. P.W.5 was sleeping on the pial situated on the veranda in front of the said house. Just opposite to the said house, on the western side, the tractor shed belonging to them is situated. The deceased Sengoda Goundar and his wife (P.W.2) were sleeping in the said tractor shed.

3. All the victims were taken to the hospital, where Sengoda Goundar was declared dead. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased.

“1. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm left shoulder.

2. Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left wrist.

3. Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm right wrist.

4. Lacerated wound 1 cm x bone deep horizontal middle head.

5. Lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm bone deep oblique left side head.”

4. The other injur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1352

IMPORTANT POINTWhat is important is identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied upon by Court.

Cases Referred (26)

IMPORTANT POINT
What is important is identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied upon by Court.