Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gopal Prasad, J.
Ram Janam Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 354 of 1998
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 06, 2011
Identification - Criminal Law - Section 395 of the Penal Code - The court discussed the evidence of identification made in the torch light, the lack of reliance on such identification, and the absence of evidence that the accused were identified by the informant. The court also highlighted the lack of support from independent witnesses and the absence of objective findings regarding the dacoity, ultimately extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code for a dacoity incident based on the prosecution's case of identification by the informant and his family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of identification in the torch light was weak, lacked reliance, and was not supported by independent witnesses. It extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the order of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the identification evidence, lack of support from independent witnesses, and absence of objective findings regarding the dacoity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the weak evidence of identification in the torch light, lack of support from independent witnesses, and absence of objective findings, leading to the extension of the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Final Decision: The order of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
Gopal Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State.
2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan by the informant that in between the night of 15-16 August, 1986 at about 01.30 a.m. while the informant was sleeping in verandah and his father and nephew were also sleeping there, 4-5 persons came and surrounded variously armed entered into the house threatened the female inmates 2 and looted away the boxes and the informant identified the accused persons in the light of the torch flashed by the dacoits and he claimed to have identified Ajay Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Brij Kumar Singh, Sanjay Singh and Dinesh Singh on the basis of torch light as well as on the basis of voice. It has, further, been stated that some the dacoits were covering their faces and besides the informant, his nephew, Gopi Nath Tiwary, also identified the dacoits. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and after the investigation the charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and the case committed to the Court of sessions.
4. After commitment, charge framed and eleven witnesses were examined out of which P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the formal witnesses, who have formally proved Exhibits 1 and 2. P.W. 3, Gobardhan Nath Tiwary, claimed to have identified six accused persons and claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of torch lit by the dacoits. P.W. 4, Suga Kunwar, the mother of the informant, aged 90 years, but, also claimed to identify the dacoits in the light of the torch lit by the dacoits. P.W. 5, Chandrakanti Devi, the daughter of P.W. 4, also claimed to identify the accused persons, including the appellants, and also claimed to have identified in the light of torch lit by the dacoits. P.W. 6 is the daughter-in-law of P.W. 4, also claimed to identify the accused persons, including the appellants, in the light of torch lit by the appellants. P.W. 7 also claimed to identify the accused persons in the light of torch. P.W. 8, Gopi Nath Tiwary, the nephew of the informant also claimed to identify the accused persons, including the appellants. P.W. 9 is the informant and the son of P.W. 4 also claimed to identify the accused persons, including the dacoits, in the light of torch, which was list by the accused persons. P.W. 10 is the doctor, who has proved injury, which is simply superficial in nature. P.W. 11 is the investigating officer. He has not mentioned any objective finding of the dacoity, however, stated that he found three boxes. However, he stated that during the investigation he did not enquire from the persons living in and around and in the neighbour of the informant. The occurrence took place in the night and the first information report was lodged at 08.00 a.m. on the next day.
5. The defence has also adduced witnesses, who are D.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated.
6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, convicted the appellants, as stated above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants, appearing as amicus curiae, however, contended that the occurrence is in the mid nigh and there is evidence that the night was dark and cloudy and there is no means of identification except the torch light, lit by the dacoits and it is difficult to identify six persons at a time in the torch light of dacoits. The accused persons are inimical and the false implication can not be ruled out and the witnesses, who support the prosecution case, are only the family members of the informant and not even the single independent witness came to support the prosecution case, no alarm was raised and none of the co-villagers said to have turned up at the place of occurrence at the time of dacoity, hence, the prosecution case is not believable and order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable.
8. The learned cou
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
