1985 Supreme(Raj) 302
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Narendra Mohan Kasltwal, JJ.
Sukh Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Jail Appeal No. 195 of 1980.
Decided On : 3-01-1985
The identification of an accused person by eyewitnesses is admissible evidence and can be used to convict the accused, provided that the identification is reliable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 394, 395, 396 INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, FINAL DECISION, MAIN LEGAL POINT, CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
A dacoity took place in the house of Chhitsria and Goverdhan, residents of Rudawal district Bharatpur in the intervening night of 15th and 16th June, 1977. When the dacoits were escaping along with the looted goods, they were challenged by Arjun (deceased). When dacoits were passing in front of the house Gir Raj, Ram Charan and deceased Arjun, the dacoits fired gun-shots, as a result of which Arjun succumbed to the injuries on the spot and Ramcharan and Munni daughter of Gir Raj were injured. Munni succumbed to the injuries aftar 5-6 days of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a dacoity had taken place and that Arjun and Munni had died as a result of gunshot wounds inflicted by the dacoits. The court also found that the accused, Sukhpal, was one of the dacoits and that he had fired a gun during the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused was one of the dacoits who committed the dacoity and killed Arjun and Munni? 2. If so, what offence has been committed by the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the accused by three eyewitnesses was reliable and that the accused had been properly convicted of dacoity under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court found that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had fired the shot that killed Arjun and Munni, and therefore acquitted him of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting him of the charge of murder. The court maintained the conviction of the accused under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, but reduced his sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated February 29, 1980, whereby appellant Sukhpal has been convicted under Sections 394 and 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life in both the offences. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a dacoity took place in the house of Chhitsria (PW 3) and Goverdhan (PW 4), residents of Rudawal district Bharatpur in the intervening night of 15th and 16th June, 1977. When the dacoits were escaping along with the looted goods, they were challenged by Arjun (deceased). When dacoits were passing in front of the house Gir Raj (PW 1), Ram Charan (PW 2) and deceased Arjun, the dacoits fired gun-shots, as a result of which Arjun succumbed to the injuries on the spot and Ramcharan (PW 2), Munni daughter of Gir Raj were injured. Munni succumbed to the injuries aftar 5-6 days of the incident. Ram Charan (PW 2) lodged a First information Report (Ex. P. 1) in the night at 15 minutes past 3 O'Clock in the police post Rudawal. Ram Singh (PW 7), in-charge police post went on the spot and started investigation. In the same night Chhitaria and Goverdhan also lodged reports (Exs. P. 3 and P. 7) and gave the list of the articles vide Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 10, which were looted from their houses. It appears that there after the dacoits could not be traced for a long time and subsequently on April 4, 1978. Sub-Inspector, police station, Bayana sent an information to Sub-Inspector, police Station, Rupwas vide Ex. p. 11 that one Sukhpal had been arrested in some other case at police Station, Bayana. Sukhpal, during investigation informed that he was one of the persons who had committed dacoity in the house of Chhitaria and Goverdhan at Rudawal,and Sukhpal had been sent to Jail in judicial Lock-up. The Sub-Inspector Rupwas, on April 6, 1978 submitted an application vide Ex. p. 12 before before Narayan Lal (PW 8), Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana for taking the proceedings and holding identification parade of accused Sukhpal. Shri Narayan Lal Verma held the identification parade on April 7, 1978 inside Sub-Jail Bayana. Gir Raj (PW 1), Ramcharan (PW 2), Chhitaria (PW 3), Rewati (PW 5) and Sanjee were brought to Sub-Jail for identifying accused Sukhpal. Out of the aforesaid persons, Gir Raj, Chhitarmal and Rewati correctly identified the accused while Ramcharan and Sanjee did not identify. The police, aftar completing the investigation, filed a challan in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, who, subsequently, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court Bharatpur.
3. It may be mentioned at this stage that iuspite of efforts made by the police the other accused persons, associated in the dacoity in question, could not be found and as such the challan was filed only against Sukhpal. So far as the other persons, whose names were disclosed by Sukhpal as guilty associates in the crime, the police traced such persons, but during investigation, it was found that no case was made out against them and a final report as such was filed against them.
4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302, 395 and 396 against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gir Raj (PW 1) Ramcharan (PW 2). Chhitarmal (PW 3), Goverdhan (PW 5) and Rewati (PW 5) as eye-witnesses, and further Kewalsingh (PW 6), Head Constable, Police Station, Rupwas, Ramsingh (PW), incharge of police post Rudwal Narayanlal Verma (PW 8) in whose presence identification parade was held; and Dr. Kesav Das Gupta (PW 9), incharge, Medical Officer, Government Dispensary, Rudwal.
6. The accused, in his explanation under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code totally denied the incident. He further stated that he had served on a floor mill of Chhitarmal and his elder brother Ramcharan had served Jagdish, who wa
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
