1995 Supreme(Raj) 791
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, V.G.Palshikar, JJ.
Devi Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 192 of 1987.
Decided On : 27-03-1995
Identification evidence is unreliable if the eyewitnesses have not had a clear view of the accused at the time of the crime and if they have been shown photographs of the accused before the identification parade.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE - FOOT-PRINTS - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 10 - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - SECTION 114 ILLUSTRATION (G) - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder, robbery, and other offenses based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of eyewitnesses who identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the identification evidence was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove that he was the one who committed the crimes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification evidence was unreliable because the eyewitnesses had not had a clear view of the appellant at the time of the crimes and because they had been shown photographs of the appellant before the identification parade. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the weapon of offense recovered from the appellant was the one used to commit the crimes. Additionally, the court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce the report of the foot-prints taken from the scene of the crime, which raised a suspicion that the report would not have supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification evidence was reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant was the one who committed the crimes. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved that the weapon of offense recovered from the appellant was the one used to commit the crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification evidence was unreliable because the eyewitnesses had not had a clear view of the appellant at the time of the crimes and because they had been shown photographs of the appellant before the identification parade. The court relied on Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which states that "the Court shall not presume that a fact is true because it is stated in a document produced for the inspection of the Court," and on Section 114 Illustration (G) of the Evidence Act, which states that "a witness may be asked whether he knows or believes who is the author of a document," but that "the witness cannot give evidence as to the contents of the document unless he has seen it." 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant was the one who committed the crimes because there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the crimes and because the circumstantial evidence was not strong enough to support a conviction. The court noted that the appellant had an alibi for the time of the crimes and that there was no evidence that he had any motive to commit the crimes. 3. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the weapon of offense recovered from the appellant was the one used to commit the crimes because the weapon did not match the description of the weapon used in the crimes and because there was no evidence that the weapon had been used in the crimes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-4-87, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302,323,342, 392 and 397, I. P.C.
2. Appellant Devi Lal was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur) for the offences under Sections 302,307,342,392 and 397 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Gopi Ram - the servant of Bahai Singh, making an attempt on the life of Bahai Singh and committing the robbery of Rs. 3000/- and three wrist watches from the house of Bahai Singh in Villager-P.S. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged by Bahai Singh, is that he is living in village 1 -P.S. whereas his other relatives are residing in Punjab on 14-6-84, at about 2.00 p.m., i.e., a day earlier to the incident, he was sleeping in his house. One clean-shaved person wearing black-colour pant and almond-colour bushtit, came on a bicycle and asked him that his land has come under the flood-canal and, therefore, he is in DM/LM/R161 /95/AM G search of some other land. Sometime thereafter his servant Gopi Ram and Pyare Singh Sunar came from the field and Dharam Singh and Radha Kishan, also, came there. He introduced that man with these persons and enquired from them whether any land is saleable as that person wanted to purchase some land. Sukhdeo Singh came there on a bicycle who took out his address and gave his address to that man. Sukhdeo Singh disclosed to him that he and his brother want to sell the land. That man went with Sukhdeo Singh on the bicycle towards the Dhani of Sukhdeo Singh. Yesterday, at about 9.00 p.m. when he and his servant Gopi Ram were sleeping in the house, that man came there; he opened the door and the man sat with him and told that he had seen the land at 49-R. B. but that land does not suits him and he wants to purchase the land in his village. He thereafter gave that man a cot which was placed between his cot and the cot of Gopi Ram. He took the meals and thereafter all of them slept. At about mid night, he heard the cries of Gopi Ram and saw that that man was killing Gopi Ram with a knife by inflicting injury on the neck of Gopi Ram. When he enquired the accused why he was killing Gopi Ram, he put a turban on his mouth and inflicted injury by fists-blows and knee on his chest and, also, tried to throttle him and asked him to give the keys of the safe. He handed-over the keys of the safe to that man. Thereafter he took him to the room and took out Rs. 3000/- lying in the safe and also, took away two old wrist watches lying in the safe and also took away the wrist watch from his wrist. The accused, also, enquired about the gold but he disclosed that he did not have any gold with him. The accused put handkerchief on his mouth, closed him in a room and went away after putting lock on the door. In the morning, at about 5.00 a.m., he raised alarm which attracted Amra Ram, who, thereafter called Veer Singh, Lakha Singh Dharam Singh and Bher Singh. During the investigation, the investigating officer came to know that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and, therefore, he arrested him and after investigation presented the challan against the accused. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 342, 392 and 3971. P.C. He therefore, convicted the accused for the offences, but, however, the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of Bahai Singh. The learned trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
