Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Punam Das, S/o. Shri Akha Das & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1995
Decided On : 27-05-2024
IDENTIFICATION - Murder and Acquittal - Sections 396, 460, 302, 302/149 of IPC - The court discussed the importance of reliable identification of accused in criminal cases, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the inadequacies in the identification process, including the lack of a timely test identification parade and the witnesses' inability to recognize the accused due to their covered faces during the incident. This lack of credible evidence influenced the court's decision to uphold the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the acquittal of respondents accused of murdering Igya Ram during a robbery on the night of 13-14 September 1984. The complainant, Ramvilas, reported the incident where masked assailants entered their home, threatened the family, and shot Igya Ram. The prosecution presented 31 witnesses and various documents, but the trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence to establish their identity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Key witnesses could not reliably identify the accused due to their covered faces during the incident and the significant time lapse before the test identification parade. The court concluded that the evidence presented was not credible and did not support the prosecution's case.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution could establish the identity of the accused and their involvement in the murder of Igya Ram beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that identification of accused in criminal cases must be reliable and credible. The failure to conduct timely test identification parades and the inability of witnesses to recognize the accused undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the conclusion that the acquittal was justified.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld, with the court finding no merit in the prosecution's arguments.
JUDGMENT :
R.P. Soni, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.05.1994 rendered by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 75/1990 & 78/1990 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 460, 302 or 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were charged and tried for allegedly committing murder of Igya Ram in the mid-night of 13.09.1984 and 14.09.1984 by shooting him in furtherance of their common object.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of present appeal against acquittal, briefly stated are that on 14.09.1984 at about 5:20 in the early morning, complainant Ramvilas (PW-2) lodged a report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur stating, inter alia, that he along with his brothers resides in Punasar village and conducts business there. In mid-night of 13.09.1984 and 14.09.1984 at around 10:30 pm, after having dinner, they slept in the court-yard. Their driver Ranjeet Singh and one Birma Ram Jat were also sleeping besides them. At around 12:30 in the night, three persons entered into the court-yard having pistols and guns. They threatened him and demanded to lead them into the house to reveal the valuables. Subsequently, they forcibly pushed all the three brothers inside the house, firing gun shot on the ground and menacingly threatening to shot them as well. The fourth person stood outside the house with a gun while one or two persons positioned themselves on the roof firing continuously. They compelled entire family to gather into the chowk of the house and instructed them to unlock the room.
3. The FIR further stated that complainant unlock the room allowing accused to enter. They inquired about the safe (Tijori). In response, brother of the complainant, Igya Ram stated that they did not possess a safe; whatever valuables they possess were in that very room. Meanwhile one of the accused fired a gun-shot at Igya Ram causing him to collapse on the ground. The trio proceeded to search for valuables inside the room, while the other accused positioned at the terrace continued firing. Half an hour later, accused returned to the chowk of the house after bundling the valuables in 2-3 bundles and demanded keys of the shop. They also looted their shop and while leaving, they shoot at a vehicle parked near the house puncturing one of its tyres.
4. It is further stated that when the complainant and his family members raised an alarm, accused threatened to kill them. The faces of all the accused were covered with cloths. They were speaking Marwari and Hindi language and are of age between 20 to 30 years. He can recognize the accused in future. Thereafter, villagers came to the place of occurrence. Igya Ram was shot at his hip. He was also taken to the Police Station.
5. In pursuance to the said complaint, investigation was set in motion and the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused-respondents. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 460, 302 or 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused-respondents to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. To bring home the guilt of the respondents, prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and also got exhibited 33 different documents. Upon being confronted with the allegations set-out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and claimed that they had been falsely implicated and are innocent. The defence propounded by the respondents in the course of trial was of total denial. No oral evidence was produced by the respondents in their defence but 5 different documents were exhibited.
7. During the trial, accused Raghuveer Singh was declared abscond by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal relates to the accused - Punam Das, Chhabila, Jogendra Singh and Birbal Ram.
8. The tria
The judgment establishes that the reliability of witness identification is crucial in criminal cases, and any doubts regarding the identification process can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
The prosecution must provide reliable identification evidence in criminal trials; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's credibility assessments unless found to be perverse, while overturning acquittals requires strong evidence and cannot merely rely on the possibility....
The importance of victim testimony, identification of accused, and the relevance of Test Identification Parade in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
