Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 814
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Pravendu Narayan Sinha And Partha Sakha Datta, JJ.
JARAHIM SK. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 192 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/20/2006
Identification of suspects in a T. I. Parade during investigation is not sufficient to sustain a conviction unless the accused persons are also identified in Court during the trial by witnesses.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EVIDENCE - CONFESSION - IDENTIFICATION - T. I. PARADE - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS IN T. I. PARADE DURING INVESTIGATION - NO SUBSTANTIVE IDENTIFICATION BEFORE COURT - CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.
Fact of the Case:
A truck driver, P. W. 10, witnessed the shooting of his assistant, Halabul Rahaman, by a police officer at a bridge in Birbhum, West Bengal. P. W. 10 identified the police officer, Jarahim Sk., and another police officer, Badruddin Sheikh, in a T. I. Parade conducted by a Magistrate. The three police officers were charged with murder, extortion, and wrongful confinement. The trial court convicted Jarahim Sk. of all charges and Badruddin Sheikh and Loknath Mondal of extortion and wrongful confinement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial court erred in relying on the alleged confessional statements of the police officers as they were not made in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court also found that the identification of the police officers by P. W. 10 in the T. I. Parade was not sufficient to sustain a conviction as there was no substantive identification of the accused by witnesses before the Court during the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged confessional statements of the police officers were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 2. Whether the identification of the police officers by P. W. 10 in the T. I. Parade was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 27 of the Evidence Act applies only to statements made by an accused person leading to the recovery of evidence. The alleged statements of the police officers in this case were not made in the context of a recovery and were therefore not admissible under Section 27. 2. Identification of suspects in a T. I. Parade during investigation is not sufficient to sustain a conviction unless the accused persons are also identified in Court during the trial by witnesses.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the trial court, and acquitted the three police officers.
( 1 ) THE appellant Jarahim Sk. in CRA 186 of 2002 and the appellants Loknath Mondal and Badruddin Sheikh in CRA 192 of 2002 assail the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat of the district of Birbhum in Sessions trial No. 3 (12) of 1996 arising out of Sessions Case No. 11 of 1992 under section 302/347/384 of the I. P. O.
( 2 ) THE appellant Jarahim Sk. was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 302, i. P. C, rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with the default stipulation on account of the offence under Section 347, I. P. C and rigorous imprisonment for two years on account of the charge under Section 384 of the I. P. C. The appellants Md. Badruddin and Loknath Mondal were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation on account of the charge under Section 347 of the I. P. C and rigorous imprisonment for two years each on account of the charge under Section 384 of the I. P. C.
( 3 ) P. W. 10 Ala Mala Ranga Rao, a driver of the truck No. ABK-9239 with his assistant Halabul Rahaman was proceeding by the said truck from bagdogra to Andhra Pradesh on 3. 7. 1988 and when they reached near Telda bridge under Rampurhat P. S. a police party consisting of three police personnel being armed with guns stopped the truck and wanted bribe from Halabul Rahaman and had a hot exchange of words with him. One of the police personnel came in front of the truck and fired against Halabul Rahaman without any provocation, which pierced into his head through the front widow screen of the vehicle and halabul fell down inside the truck. P. W. 10 left the truck out of the fear and chanced to meet P. W. 1 Kamru Arjun Rao, another truck driver of Andhra Pradesh at a little distance and informed him of the incident and then returned back to the Telda bridge and then proceeded with the vehicle to get the injured Halabul rahaman admitted in the hospital who on the way near Hira hotel died.
( 4 ) THIS was the FIR lodged by P. W. 10 with the Rampurhat Police station at 22. 15 hours on 3. 7. 1988 which upon registration of Rampurhat P. S. Case No. 1 dated 3. 7. 1988 under Section 302/34 of the I. P. C. against the three police personnel on duty at Telda bridge submitted charge-sheet against them under Section 347/384/302/34 of the I. P. C. and the learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial convicted the appellant Jarahim Sk. under all the sections of the law as aforesaid and convicted the other two appellants under Section 347/ 384 of the I. P. C. and passed sentence in the manner as aforesaid.
( 5 ) OF the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution it is P. W. 10, FIR maker who according to the prosecution is the star witness of the prosecution case inasmuch as occurrence took place in his presence and it was he who identified the appellant Jarahim and another appellant Badruddin in the T. I. Parade in jail conducted by P. W. 5 Sri T. K. Mukherjee, Metropolitan Magistrate, calcutta on 18. 7. 1988 telling that it was the appellant Jarahim who fired from his fire arms and it was the appellant Badruddin who stopped the vehicle, demanded Rs. 5/- and also fired against the Khalasi (Halabul) who died in the hospital. The place of occurrence is said to be Telda bridge on the way between rampurhat and Suri and the vehicle in question was being driven by P. W. 10 towards Andhra Pradesh via Rampurhat. Further, according to the prosecution, evidence of P. W. 1 Kamru Arjun Rao, a fellow driver of P. W. 10 is also important in this that in terms of FIR P. W. 10 immediate after the incident, leaving the vehicle at the spot, proceeded a little to meet P. W. 1 and informed him of the incident and moreover FIR was lodged in the presence of P. W. 1, and the FIR which was written in Bengali script (ext. 1) but in Hindi language wa
