Back
High Court Of Delhi
SIRI RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 91 of 1989
Decided On : 03/22/1991
CRIMINAL LAW - ROBBERY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - SECTION 313 CR. P. C. - SCOPE AND OBJECT - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PUT TO ACCUSED - USE AGAINST ACCUSED - PREJUDICE - SECTION 395/397 IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - CONFIRMATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Siri Ram, Rati Ram, and Leela Ram were charged with committing robbery and causing grievous hurt while armed with deadly weapons. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses, and the defense of the accused was one of innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the identity of the appellants as the robbers who participated in the crime. The court relied on the testimony of the victim, who identified the appellants in court and during a test identification parade, as well as the recovery of stolen property at the instance of the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the identity of the appellants as robbers who participated in the crime? 2. Whether the refusal of the appellants to participate in the test identification parade can be used against them? 3. Whether the circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. can be used against them? 4. Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants are justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established the identity of the appellants through the testimony of the victim, the recovery of stolen property at their instance, and their refusal to participate in the test identification parade. 2. The court held that the refusal of the appellants to participate in the test identification parade could be used against them, as it was a circumstance that could be inferred from the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. 3. The court held that the circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. could not be used against them, but that even without those circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to establish the identity of the appellants. 4. The court held that the conviction and sentence of the appellants were justified, as the evidence proved their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted Siri Ram and dismissed the appeals of Rati Ram and Leela Ram.
( 1 ) THE charge against the appellants Siri Ram, Rati Ram @ Ratia, Leela Ram @ Leelu is that they along with other co-accused (eight in all) conjointly committed robbery of the property, i. e. pair of bangles necklace, pair of ear tops chain of platinum, eartops with ruby stones and three rings with stones and other articles belonging to Smt. Shiv Parbha Singh and Smt Yogeshwari Devi, on the intervening night of 7th and 8th June, 1983 at. house No. A-65, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, and while committing this offence they were armed with deadly weapons and they made use of the same in causing grievous hurt to Mrs Shiv Parbha Singh, (Public Witness 4), and Anant Narain Bhanjedev, who were occupant of the house at that time. Leelu Ram, Deep Chand @ Deepa, Rati Ram. Randhir and Sri Ram were arrested and were challaned and prosecuted under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC, whereas Puran. Ram Chander and Vidya Ram. other co-accused could not be arrested and they were declared proclaimed offenders. The challan against them was filed under Section 299 Cr. P. C.
( 2 ) IN support of its case, as many as 17 witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The defence of the accused persons was common and that of innoccnce, According to themn they were lifted from their houses and were not arrested in the manner shown by the police and nothing was recovered at their instance and they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, none of them produced any witness in their defence or to support their version.
( 3 ) THE trial Court i. e. Addl Sessions Judge, New Delhi, afterappreciating the evidence on record and discussing the relevant provisions of law found Leela Ram, Rati Ram, and Siri Ram guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code and convicted them thereunder. The other two accused persons Randhir and Deep Chand were, however, acquitted, as their identity could not be established. Against accused Puran, Vidya Ram and Ram Chander, the case was ordered to be consigned to record room under Section 299 Cr. P. C. by his judgment dated 11-7-1989. After giving an opportunity of hearing the learned Addl Sessions Judge sentenced Leela Ram and Rati Ram and Siri Ram to ten years rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 each and in default of payment of fine further six months rigorous imprisonment. The period already undergone by them in custody was ordered to be set off.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED ; Siri Ram, Rati Ram and Leela Ram filed this anneal challenging the judgment and. the order dated 11-7-1989 and 13-7-1989 Passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge on various grounds.
( 5 ) THE first question which needs answer is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the identity of the appellants as robbers who participated in the crime?
( 6 ) BY now it is well settled that the question of identificatin is a primary matter for consideration in a case of dacoity by unknown persons hard and fast rule can be laid down that in every case of dacoity if there is identification by only one witness, that identification should never be accepted Every instance of identification which usually accompany a case of dacoity has to be judged on the facts of that. particular case presented by the prosecution and if after a careful scrutiny, there is slightest hesitation in the mind of the Court that there was possibility of mistaken identification or that the statement of the sole witness was influenced by some other cause, the accused is entitled as a matter of course to the benefit of a reasonable doubt The fact of the identification is admissible in evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Substantive evidence regarding identification is given by a witness during trial
( 7 ) IN this case record shows that the incident of robbery took place on the night intervening 7th and 8th June, 1983. Rati Ram and Leela ram appellants were arrested on 2nd October, 1983. Immediately after their arres
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
