Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DHARNIDHAR JHA & ANJANA PRAKASH, JJ.
Kanti Devi - Appellant
With
Khalil Mian & Ors. – Appellant
With
Vinod Singh – Appellant
With
Vijay Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent (in all the cases)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.446 of 1988
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 496 of 1988
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 518 of 1988
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 539 of 1988
Decided On: 06-08-2014
Advocate Appeared:
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 446 of 1988)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Ashwani Kr. Sinha, Adv.
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 496 of 1988)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. with
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 518 of 1988)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh Mr. Anil Singh
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 539 of 1988)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan Pd. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha Mr. Satya Nr. Prasad
Headnote:
Identification - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 396, 412 - The judgment discusses the evidence of identification of the appellants, the recovery of articles, and the conduct of the Test Identification Parade. The court upholds the conviction and sentence of the appellants Vinod Singh and Vijay Singh under Section 396 Indian Penal Code, acquits them of charges under Section 412 Indian Penal Code, and affirms the judgment and order dated 12.8.1988 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1985/4 of 1985. The remaining appellants are acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the looting of a cash box containing 12,00,000/- and the shooting of an armed guard while traveling in a train. The prosecution's case relied on the identification of the miscreants and the recovery of articles from the appellants' houses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of identification by the witness to be unassailable and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants Vinod Singh and Vijay Singh under Section 396 Indian Penal Code. The remaining appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the identification evidence, the conduct of the Test Identification Parade, and the recovery of articles from the appellants' houses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the competence of the identifying witness, the absence of delay in holding the Test Identification Parade, and the unassailable nature of the identification evidence to uphold the conviction of the appellants Vinod Singh and Vijay Singh under Section 396 Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants Vinod Singh and Vijay Singh under Section 396 Indian Penal Code, acquitted them of charges under Section 412 Indian Penal Code, and affirmed the judgment and order dated 12.8.1988. The remaining appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Seven appeals were filed against the judgment dated 12th August, 1988 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No.10 of 1985/04 of 1985.
2. Out of the aforesaid cases, Cr. Appeal No.436 of 1988, Cr. Appeal No.448 of 1988 and Cr. Appeal No.534 of 1988 have abated on account of death of four appellants, namely, 1. Amna Khatoon, 2.Hiramani Devi, 3. Baiju Lal Singh and 4. Ram Niwas Singh.
3. The remaining appeals are Cr. Appeal No.446 of 1988 filed by Kanti Devi, who has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section(s) 412 Indian Penal Code, Cr. Appeal No. 496 of 1988 has been filed on behalf of Khalil Mian, Ramta Singh and Harakh Singh, who have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section(s) 412 Indian Penal Code, Cr. Appeal No.518 of 1988 and Cr. Appeal No.539 of 1988 preferred on behalf of Binod Singh and Vijay Singh, both of them have been convicted under Section(s) 396 and 412 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and seven years respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. The case of the prosecution, according to the Informant Surendra Kumar Dwivedi, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Laxmi Commercial Bank, is that on 04.01.1983 at about 6.30 AM, he had left his bank office in the company of the Bank armed guard deceased Kishori Lal along with 12 lacs in a sealed box for deposit in Patna Branch situated at Exhibition Road. They were traveling in Patna-Gaya train. At about 8.00, in the morning when the train just left Jehanabad Railway Station, 5-6 persons suddenly appeared and three of them tried to snatch away the gun of the armed guard. This led to struggle in which course one of them shot dead the armed guard. The miscreants then fled away with the cash box and the gun. He was also injured in this transaction for which he was removed to hospital where he recorded his fard-e-beyan. He claimed in the fard-e-beyan that he would be in a position to identify the miscreants if they were shown to him.
5. During investigation, on the basis of certain leads, the present Appellants/deceased Appellants and some acquitted persons were rounded up and the trial proceeded against as many as 28 persons out of whom the rest were acquitted, whereas, the present Appellants were convicted as mentioned above.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 43 witnesses. However, numbering of the witnesses was slightly wrong which it has led to confusion in the judgment of the Court below. We shall deal with the correct serial by name of the witnesses without bothering to correct the numbers given in the deposition.
7. Out of 43 witnesses, we find that PW 3 Samiullah Khan, PW5 M. Q. Hassan, PW 7 Ramjee Ram, PW 10 Akhtar Khan, PW 12 Mukesh Pd. Srivastava, PW 16 Sahdeo Yadav, PW 22 Ram Janam Nirala, PW 25 Brajmohan Pd. Verma, PW 31 Vijay Shankar Prasad, PW 42 Birendra Singh and PW 43 Paldeo Singh are tendered witnesses.
8. PW 1 Sheo Bachan Singh, PW 2 Prem Chand Ojha are formal witnesses merely on the point of occurrence having heard about the same. Similarly, PW 6 Rai Randhir Kumar Sinha and PW 13 Birendra Singh are on hearsay account. PW 4 Kapildeo Narain, PW 8 Awadh Kishore Pandey, PW 11 R. N. Kuer, PW 14 Havaldar Awadh Kr. Singh, PW 17 Mokhtar Hussain, PW 28 Ram Naresh Singh, PW 29 Kishori Singh, PW 30 Ram Lal Paswan and PW 33 Rajbali Yadav are formal witness. The rest of the witnesses we shall discuss in short narrating the part of the evidence which has led to the final result.
9. PW 18, Surendra Kumar Dwivedi, the Informant is the most important witnesses. In court, he narrated the manner in which the armed guard had been shot dead and the cash box containing 12,00,000/- was looted. He stated in Court that he had visited the jail premises twice for participating in Test Identification Parade in which he had identified Appellant Vijay Singh, Vinod Sin
