Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

( 1 ) THESE are four appeals from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 3. 9. 1980. This judgment will govern them all.

( 2 ) FOUR persons Rajinder Kumar, Balbir Singh, Rattan Lal and Joginder Lal were put on trial under sections 397/392/34 and Section 411 IPC. Joginder, Rajinder and Balbir were convicted for offences under sec. 392/34. The charge under Sec. 397 Indian Penal Code was dismissed against them. They were convicted and sentenced to R. I. for four years and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each and in default R. I. for three months under sec. 392. 00 34 Indian Penal Code Rattan Lal was convicted under sec. 411 Indian Penal Code He was sentenced to RI for two years. From the order of the trial judge these four convicted persons appealed to this court against their sentence and conviction.

( 3 ) IT is a case of broad day light robbery. The facts are as follows. Uma Kapila, complainant was a lecturer in Miranda College. She was living with her husband Raj Kapila and her mother-in-law Parkash Wati in house No. 182, Tagore Park, New Delhi. Onf 29. 8. 74 these two women, Uma Kapila and Prakash Wati, were in their House. At about 2. 30 p. m. Prakash Wati had gone up stairs to the terrace for drying clothes. It is alleged that three persons came on the terrace. They showed knives and forced Prakash Wati to come down stairs. Uma Kapila was present on the ground floor. She saw her mother-in-law being brought forcibly at the point of knives down stairs by three persons. These persons then asked these women to hand over whatever they possessed. From Uma s person they took a cash of Rs. 251-, her two gold bangles, a Roamer wrist watch and a pair of earrings. From the person of Prakash Wati they took one gold bangle. They then ransacked the wardrobe of Uma and took away seven gold bangles, four pairs of earrings, three gold chains, one pendant and a cash of Rs. 400. 00. From the almirah of Prakash Wati theyook three gold bangles, one gold chain, one pendant and some coins. Uma s husband s wrist watch was also taken away. Culprits left the place after cutting the telephone wires.

( 4 ) THE trial judge mainly relying on the evidence of the two women convicted Rajinder, Balbir and Joginder under sec. 392/34, as I have said. Rattan Lal was convicted under sec. 41 I as the receiver of the stolen property. The learned judge found the evidence of Uma "illuminating and convincing", though he was not unmindful of the "lapses" on the part of the police in proving the case.

( 5 ) IN my opinion all the four appeals must be allowed. Crl. A. No. 318 of 19so :

( 6 ) I first take up the appeals of Balbir (Grl. A. No. 318 of 1980 ). The only question in this appeal is whether there has been an identification of the accused. In the case of Balbir an identification parade was held. The two women Uma Kapila and Prakash Wati (Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 2) could not identify. Ralbir, appellant. He was identified in court at the time of the trial.) Where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous identification parade to test his powers of observation. The idea of holding test identification parade under sec. 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no identification parade is held than it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. This principle has been enunciated in a large number of authorities. It is sufficient to refer to the latest decision in Kanan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC. 1127. Applying this principle what do we find against Balbir? Nothing. There has been no proper identification. Nor has there been any recovery of the stolen articles from him. His guilt has not been proved beyond r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document