Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 810
High Court Of Calcutta
Pravendu Narayan Sinha And Partha Sakha Datta, JJ.
JARAHIM SK. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CRA 192 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/20/2006
AYAN BHATTACHARYYA, MANASI ROY, MILON MUKHERJEE, Ratna Ghosh, S.G.MUKHERJI, SANDIPAN GANGULY, SWAPAN KR.MALLICK
Identification of the accused during the trial is crucial for conviction, and identification during the investigation stage, such as a T.I. Parade, is merely corroborative. A confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must lead to recovery and cannot be based on statements made at the police station while depositing weapons and ammunition.
Headnote:
IDENTIFICATION - T.I. PARADE - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 27 - CONFESSION - IPC - SECTION 302/347/384 - Identification of the accused during the trial is crucial for conviction, and identification during the investigation stage, such as a T.I. Parade, is merely corroborative. A confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must lead to recovery and cannot be based on statements made at the police station while depositing weapons and ammunition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder, extortion, and wrongful confinement based on the testimony of a truck driver who witnessed the incident and identified the appellants in a T.I. Parade. The prosecution also relied on alleged confessional statements made by the appellants to the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification of the appellants during the investigation stage was not sufficient to convict them, as they were not identified during the trial. The court also held that the alleged confessional statements were not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as they were not made in the context of a recovery.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellants during the T.I. Parade was sufficient to convict them, even though they were not identified during the trial? 2. Whether the alleged confessional statements made by the appellants to the police were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that identification of the accused during the trial is crucial for conviction, and identification during the investigation stage, such as a T.I. Parade, is merely corroborative. 2. The court held that a confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must lead to recovery and cannot be based on statements made at the police station while depositing weapons and ammunition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
( 1 ) THE appellant Jarahim Sk. in CRA No. 186 of 2002 and the appellants Loknath Mondal and Badruddin Sheikh in CRA No. 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 IPC.
( 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 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1. 000/- with the default stipulation on account of the offence under section 347 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years on account of the charge under section 384 of the IPC. 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 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years each on account of the charge under section 384 of the IPC.
( 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 window screen of the vehicle and Halabul fell down inside the truck. P. W. 10 left the truck out of fear and chanced to meet P. W. I 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 IPC against the three police personnel on duty at Telda Bridge submitted chargesheet against them under section 347/ 384/ 302/ 34 of the IPC 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 IPC 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 firearms 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. I 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. I and informed him of the incident and moreover FIR was lodged in the presence of P. W. I, and the FIR which was written in bengali script (Ext. l) but in Hindi language was signed by P. W. 10 and on the left hand
