1982 Supreme(Raj) 222

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
K.S.Sidhu, J.
Netrapal and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1981, 231 of 1981, 173 of 1981.
Decided On : 16-01-1982

Identification evidence is unreliable if the witnesses have not been able to give a clear description of the culprits and there is no light available at the time of the crime. A test identification parade must be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Evidence of recovery of stolen property is sufficient to prove that the accused is guilty of receiving stolen property.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - TEST IDENTIFICATION - RELIABILITY - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 9 - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - PROCEDURE - SECTION 337 CRPC - COMPLIANCE - NECESSITY - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - WITNESSES - PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ACCUSED - EFFECT ON IDENTIFICATION - SECTION 9 EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - PROCEDURE - SECTION 337 CRPC - COMPLIANCE - NECESSITY - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - WITNESSES - PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ACCUSED - EFFECT ON IDENTIFICATION - RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY - SECTION 411 IPC - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE OF RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY - SUFFICIENCY - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 395/397 IPC - NOT WARRANTED - SENTENCE - REDUCTION - APPROPRIATENESS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of dacoity and receiving stolen property. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with others, had entered the house of the complainant at night and robbed the inmates of their valuables. The appellants were arrested and stolen property was recovered from them. The appellants denied their involvement in the crime and challenged the identification evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the identification evidence was unreliable. The witnesses had not been able to give a clear description of the culprits and there was no light available at the time of the crime. The court also found that the test identification parade had not been conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court, however, found that the evidence of recovery of stolen property was sufficient to prove that the appellants were guilty of receiving stolen property.

Issues: 1. Whether the identification evidence was reliable? 2. Whether the test identification parade was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 3. Whether the evidence of recovery of stolen property was sufficient to prove that the appellants were guilty of receiving stolen property?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification evidence was unreliable because the witnesses had not been able to give a clear description of the culprits and there was no light available at the time of the crime. 2. The court held that the test identification parade had not been conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the witnesses had prior knowledge of the accused. 3. The court held that the evidence of recovery of stolen property was sufficient to prove that the appellants were guilty of receiving stolen property.

Final Decision: The court set aside the convictions of the appellants under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and convicted them under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court reduced the sentences of the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.