Important Point – Courts can rely upon dock identification to convict accused.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The appellant-Chandrakant Jha has filed three appeals impugning three separate judgments, all dated 24th January, 2013, convicting him for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC for short). These convictions arise from the charge-sheets filed in FIR No.609/2006 dated 20th October, 2006; FIR No.243/2007 dated 25th April, 2007 and FIR No.279/2007 dated 18th May, 2007 recorded at the Police Station Hari Nagar after headless torsos of unknown persons were found packed in a gunny bag/carton outside the Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi on three separate dates when the FIRs were registered, i.e., on 20th October, 2006, 25th April, 2007 and 18th May, 2007.

2. The following table gives details of the FIRs, name of the victims/deceased, orders on sentence and the punishment imposed; criminal appeal numbers preferred by Chandrakant Jha, and the death references preferred by the State:-

FIR No. Name of the victim/deceased Order on sentence date Sentence Imposed Criminal Appeal No.

609/2006 Anil Mandal @ Amit 6/2/2013 Death Sentence and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Criminal Appeal No. 216/2015 & Death Reference No.2/2013

246/2007 Upender 5/2/2013 Death Sentence and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month.

Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the

offence under Section 201 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Criminal Appeal No. 655/2013 & Death Reference No.3/2013

279/2007 unidentified 4/2/2013 Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Rigorous Imprisonment of Seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.656/2013

3. We begin by noticing the prosecution assertions as to the significant similarities or commonalities in the three charge sheets as is also noticed in the impugned judgments. The first is the identity of the perpetrator i.e. Chandrakant Jha. The second is similarity of the motive i.e. ulterior feeling or objective that prompted and led to the crime, and the pattern in which the offences were committed by decapitating the heads of the victim and throwing the headless torso outside the Tihar Jail, Delhi. Bilateral similarities in the charge sheets and as recorded in the judgments may also be noticed. In the last two cases arising out of FIR No.243/2007 and FIR No.279/2007, body parts, namely, arms and legs were chopped and the amputated parts were thrown in and around Delhi. In the first and last case, i.e. FIR No.609/2006 and FIR No.279/2007, there are two more connecting links. Firstly, hand written letter, one in each case, were found and recovered along with the decapitated body left outside the Tihar Jail. These letters taunt and ridicule the police with a challenge to identify and incarcerate the perpetrator. They use caustic and pungent language panning and castigating the Delhi Police for dishonourable and damnatory conduct of harassment, torture and false implication of innocents like the author/perpetrator. Secondly, as a part of his strategy, the perpetrator had made telephone calls to intimate and inform to the police that he had left the dead corpse outside the jail. The sly calls and incendiary first information to the police about the beheaded bodies outside the jail is a peculiar similar feature in the first and the last FIR i.e. FIR Nos.609/06 and 279/07. We have in the course of our decision made reference to Sections 14 and 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act, for short) and examined whether this percipient evidence is admissible/relevant by applying the