Back
1970 Supreme(Raj) 4
Rajasthan High Court
L. S. MEHTA
Pritam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 1969
Decided On : 01/12/1970
N.L. Tibrowal, for the Appellants; G.M. Mehta, for the State.
The identification of an accused person must be conducted promptly after the incident to ensure its reliability. A single witness's testimony is insufficient to convict an accused of robbery, especially when the identification is made in dim light and from a distance.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ROBBERY - SECTION 394, INDIAN PENAL CODE - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - TEST IDENTIFICATION HELD LONG AFTER THE EVENT - VALUE OF IDENTIFICATION - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 80 - IDENTIFICATION MEMO - ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh were convicted of robbery under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based solely on the testimony of the victim, Tekchand, who claimed to have identified them during the incident and later in court. However, the identification parade was conducted more than four months after the incident, raising concerns about the reliability of the identification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the identification parade was conducted too long after the incident, making it unreliable. The court also noted that the identification memo was not admissible in evidence as the Magistrate who conducted the parade was not examined as a witness. The court further held that the testimony of a single witness, especially when the identification is made in dim light and from a distance, is not sufficient to convict the accused of robbery.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification parade conducted more than four months after the incident was reliable. 2. Whether the identification memo was admissible in evidence without the testimony of the Magistrate who conducted the parade. 3. Whether the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to convict the accused of robbery.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification parade was unreliable due to the long delay between the incident and the parade. The court noted that the value of identification depends on the witness having no opportunity to see the accused after the crime and that mistakes can be made if the identification is conducted after an inordinate delay. 2. The court held that the identification memo was not admissible in evidence as the Magistrate who conducted the parade was not examined as a witness. The court noted that the presumption under Section 80 of the Evidence Act would arise only if the memorandum of identification amounted to evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 3. The court held that the testimony of a single witness, especially when the identification is made in dim light and from a distance, is not sufficient to convict the accused of robbery. The court noted that the safe rule is that the sworn testimony of a witness in the trial court as to the identity of the accused, who are strangers to the witnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration in the form of earlier identification proceedings.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh of the offence under Section 394 of the IPC.
MEHTA, J. : On August 25, 1967, at about 8 P. M. accused Pritam Singh, Dalip Singh, Ranki and Chandra Sahai, armed with pistols and knives, entered the house of the complainant Tekchand, situate in Ganganagar, to commit robbery. Tekchand and his wife Mst. Manbhari were available in the house. The accused Pritam Singh caught hold of Tekchand and took him to the storeroom. He gave blows to Tekchand with a 'Lathi' and threatened him with dire consequences unless he parted with his valuables. Accused Ranki forcibly took off ornaments of Mst. Manbhari. On her raising an alarm, she was beaten. She however, managed to run away towards the gate. The accused Chandra Sahai tried to catch her. She somehow escaped from her residence. On hearing her cries Puran and others assembled on the spot. After sometime the accused took to their heels with the booty stolen by them. Tekchand lodged first information report with the Police Kotwali, Ganganagar, soon after the occurrence. In the course of investigation one Banta Singh was arrested by the Police. He disclosed the name of the accused Ranki. The police got clue in respect of the other accused persons from Ranki; both Ranki and Chandra Sahai were challaned in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ganganagar. That court committed them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for trial under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, on December 18, 1967. The other two accused Dalip Singh and Pritam Singh were arrested on Decemebr 17, 1967. Subsequently, they too were challaned in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ganganagar. The said Magistrate conducted preliminary enquiry and committed them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to face trial under Section 394, Indian Penal Code. The cases were subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge of the place. The trial court consolidated the two cases. The four accused denied to have commited any offence. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. In their statements recorded under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused again denied the indictment. The trial Court relied upon the solitary statement of Tekchand and convicted the accused Pritam Singh, Dalip Singh and Ranki for the offence under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to four years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused Chandra Sahai was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.
2. Aggrieved against the above judgment, Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh have filed this appeal. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that offence under Section 394, I. P. C., has not been fully brought home against his clients and, therefore, they should be acquitted. Learned counsel for the State Government submitted that Tekchand's evidence before the trial court alone is enough to base the conviction of the appellants. The witness saw the accused from close quarters when the robbery was committed or when they were beating the inmates of the house and, therefore, there is no reason to doubt this testimony.
3. In this case no other prosecution witness except Tekchand identified Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh. No stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. At the time of the identification parade Pooran Ram expressed his inability to identify the accused on the ground that the night of occurrence being dark, he could not definitely see the robbers. It is in the prosecution evidence that Tekchand's house had no electricity and that it was Tekchand, who identified the accused. There was only a dim light of a kerosene lantern. In that context, it was difficult if not impossible, to observe minutely, the features of the robbers from a distance of about 20 Pavandas' or 100 feet. The occurrence took place on August 25, 1967, the identification proceedings were conducted on December 29, 1967, that is
