Back
1979 Supreme(Del) 114
High Court Of Delhi
PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 404 of 1976
Decided On : 05/10/1979
D.C.MATHUR, N.K.PARMAR, S.N.Mehta
Identification evidence is weak and unreliable when there is a lack of specific descriptions of the assailants in initial police statements and when proper precautions are not taken during the test identification parade.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 324 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUAL MATRIX INVOLVING IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED IN COURT - RELIABILITY OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - SIGNIFICANCE OF DESCRIPTION OF ASSAILANTS IN POLICE STATEMENTS - FAIRNESS OF TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN PARADE - CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARREST AND RECOVERY OF WEAPON - SUSPICIOUS INVESTIGATION - DEFENSE VERSION OF ALIBI - FAILURE OF PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment, and also convicted of causing hurt under Section 324 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The incident involved the stabbing of Rukmani and Kanhaiya by the appellant and his companion, Kishan Lal, after an altercation over the availability of cigarettes and tea.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification of the appellant in court was unreliable due to the lack of specific descriptions of the assailants in the initial police statements and the absence of proper precautions during the test identification parade. The court also found the circumstances of the appellant's arrest and the recovery of the weapon to be suspicious, and the investigation to be deficient.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellant in court was reliable. 2. Whether the adverse inference drawn from the appellant's refusal to participate in the test identification parade was justified. 3. Whether the circumstances of the appellant's arrest and the recovery of the weapon were suspicious. 4. Whether the defense version of alibi was plausible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification of the appellant in court was unreliable due to the lack of specific descriptions of the assailants in the initial police statements and the absence of proper precautions during the test identification parade. The court noted that the witnesses had only provided general descriptions of the assailants as being tall and of medium stature, and that there was no mention of distinctive features or clothing. The court also found that the appellant was taken to the place of occurrence and shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade, which raised concerns about the fairness of the procedure. 2. The court held that the adverse inference drawn from the appellant's refusal to participate in the test identification parade was not justified. The court noted that the appellant had already been shown to the witnesses at the place of occurrence, and that the refusal to participate in the parade was therefore understandable. 3. The court found the circumstances of the appellant's arrest and the recovery of the weapon to be suspicious. The court noted that the police had not disclosed the identity of the informer who provided the information leading to the arrest, and that there was no contemporaneous documentation of the recovery of the weapon. The court also found it suspicious that the appellant was taken to the place of occurrence immediately after his arrest. 4. The court found the defense version of alibi to be plausible. The court noted that the appellant had been employed in a factory near the place of occurrence and was on sick leave at the time of the incident. The court also found that the defense witnesses had provided consistent statements supporting the alibi.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the appellant as the culprit responsible for causing the death of Rukmani and the knife injury to Kanhaiya.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that on February 8, 1975 at about 9. 30 p. m. Nand Lal (Public Witness 2), Chowkidar, happened to be sitting on a charpai along with his wife, Nandni (not examined), outside the godown of his factory, C-8/2, Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi. The appellant along with his companion, Kishan Lal, came up and enquired of Nand Lal from where cigarettes and tea would be available. Nand Lal told them that it would be difficult to get cigarettes and tea and simultaneously enquired from where they had come. The appellant and his companion asked Nand Lal why cigarettes and tea would not be available from the shop opposite to that place and asked him to bring the same. Nand Lal refused to oblige saying that he happened to be on duty. The appellant and his companion insisted that he should fetch but Nand Lal did not agree Thereupon, the appellant sat on the charpai and said why he was not carrying out the command. Nand Lal called outkanhaiya (PW4), Chowkidar, employed at the adjacent premises. Kanhaiya along with his wife, Rukmani, came up. On being apprised of the situation, Kanhaiya asked why they were there and where from they had come. He was given the rebuff that he had no business to make such enquiries. Saying that it was a part of their duty, Nand Lal, Kanhaiya and Rukmani tried to catch hold the appellant and his companion, whereupon the appellant, took out chhuri from his right dub and stabbed Rukmani on the abdomen and Kanhaiya on the neck and made good their escape.
( 3 ) KAMALJIT (not examined) gave information on telephone about the stabbing incident to police station Sarai Rohilla at 10 p. m. Constable Bhagat Ram (Public Witness 12) made entry (copy Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 12/a) in the daily diary and deputed A. S. I. Sardar Singh (Public Witness 16) to the place of occurrence and informed Police Control Room as well as the Police Post Ashok Vihar. Subinspector Ram Singh (Public Witness 18) of the Police Control Room rushed to the place of occurrence and removed Kanhaiya and Rukmani to the Willingdon Hospital where Dr. A. P. Bansal (Public Witness 1) examined the injured at 10. 55 p. m. In regard to Kanhaiya the doctor noticed sharp incised wound just about left ternoclavicular measuring l"x4" with hae motoma and in regard to Rukmani he observed sharp edged wound over right lumber region measuring l"x4" with greater omentum out. He prepared reports Ex. Public Witness Public Witness I/a and Ex. Public Witness Public Witness I/b and referred Rukmani, who was in semi-conscious state, to the Surgical Wing. Sub Inspector Nar Singh (Public Witness 19), Incharge Police Post Ashok Vihar, who had also arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded statement of Nand Lal (Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/a) and forwarded the same along with his erdorsement (Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 19/a), for registration of case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this way. Constable Ram Pat (Public Witness 7), who was functioning as duty officer, recorded formal first information report (copy Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 7/a) on the basis of the rukka and registered the case.
( 4 ) DR. P. P. S. Bhatia (Public Witness 5), who was attending upon Rukmani, performed urgent exploratory labrotomy as there was clinical evidence of internal haemorrhage and found massive haemoporetoneum on account of bleeding from greater omentum and duodenum. During the process of nopping cardio arrest occurred at the table and the patient could not be resuscitated despite best efforts and was declared d;ad at 5. 05 am. on Fe
