Back
1987 Supreme(Pat) 30
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.P.Varma and Abhiram Singh JJ.
Shayamdeo Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1986 ; 31 of 1986 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 1987
Identification evidence must be reliable and corroborated by other evidence. A T.I. parade should be conducted to strengthen identification evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 396 IPC - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY - IDENTIFICATION PARADE NOT CONDUCTED - WITNESSES NOT FAMILIAR WITH ACCUSED PRIOR TO INCIDENT - IDENTIFICATION BASED ON TORCHLIGHT - DOUBTFUL - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Two appellants were convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity and murder. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with other dacoits, raided the house of the informant, Babulal, and shot his son Umesh, who died. The appellants were identified by Babulal and other eyewitnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of identification was unreliable. The witnesses did not know the appellants prior to the incident and the identification was based on torchlight. The court also noted that the prosecution did not conduct a T.I. parade, which would have strengthened the identification evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification evidence was reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution should have conducted a T.I. parade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification evidence was unreliable because the witnesses did not know the appellants prior to the incident and the identification was based on torchlight. The court also noted that the prosecution did not conduct a T.I. parade, which would have strengthened the identification evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and ordered their release.
1. The two appellants named above have been convicted under S. 396 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and they have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. The case against them arose on the statement of P.W. 7 Babulal Pd, made at police station Ghosi in the district of Gaya (presently district of Jahanabad.)
3. The occurrence took place on 14-12-79 at about 11.30 P.M. in Village-Paraman which falls in police station Ghosi. It is stated that a few dacoits including these two appellants raided the house of the informant P.W. 7 Babulal who was then sleeping in a Dalan. He woke up on hearing the sound of a few persons scaling over and jumping in his Angan. It was a winter season and he had covered himself in the bed with a quilt (Rejai). He claims that he peeped through removing the quilt a bit and in the light of the torches flashed by some of the dacoits he identified the two appellants Shayamdeo Singh and Suresh Singh both belonging to Village-Kewla under the same police station Ghosi. He further identified the two other accused named Birju Kahar and Dhanesh Sharma. Birju is an absconder and Dhanesh Sharma was not sent up for trial. The reasons thereof have not been brought in court.
4. The police arrived in the village at about 6 A.M. in the morning and recorded the fardbeyan of Babulal on the basis of which an FIR was drawn up and the case registered. It is the case of the prosecution that in course of commission of dacoity, P.W. 6 Deonandan and his son Umesh came running to the house of the informant. Umesh was ahead of his father. Looking at him, the appellant Sukhdeo fired his gun hitting Umesh who dropped down dead. The police conducted inquest over the dead body and despatched it to hospital for post mortem examination. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and the two appellants were thus, but on trial.
5. Before we discuss the evidence regarding the merit of the case, we would like to record here that the police officer who investigated the case has not been examined. It was P.W.1 another police officer who finally submitted charge-sheet and the evidence of this witness needs no discussion. Even the doctor who conducted post mortem examination was not brought in court. The prosecution therefore, took steps to get the post mortem report exhibited in court in evidence. It has been marked as Ext.2. The case diary written by the investigating officer has also been proved and marked as Ext.3 and the inquest report has been, marked as Ext.4. These documents have been proved by P.W.8 who is the clerk of an advocate practicing in the court at Jahanabad. We refrain ourselves in making any comments as to how these documents were proved in evidence through an advocate clerk but we must state that such practice should be depricated. Since the counsel for the appellant did not attack before us the factum of commission of dacoity, we were not addressed with regard to admissibility of these documents. However, counsel for the appellant have vehemently attacked the factum of identification and consistent argument has been made, in both the appeals, that in the circumstances referred to in the case there was absolutely no possibility of any identification and only the inmates of the house have come in court to speak about and their evidence on the question of identification is not worthy of credence.
6. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, out of whom P.Ws. 4,5,6 and 7 claimed to be eyewitnesses. They have deposed in court to identify these two appellants as discussed above. P.W. 7 is the informant on whose statement the case was registered.
7. The first eyewitness examined in the case is P.W. 4. She is the daughter of the informant. She is major and perusal of her statement indicates that she is quite mature having full understanding. She has said that she saw these two appellants for the first time only at the time of commission of dacoity. It is quite clear that she did
