IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Shiv Kumar Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 253, 272, 311, 724 of 2018
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 396 and 412 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908 - Section 4/5 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 – Dacoity with murder - Informant has stated that several unknown criminals were exploding bombs and threatening villagers - They entered his house, committed marpit with him and on gun point asked to hand over cash and jewelleries - After collecting valuables they left his house and on their way to escape caused injury by exploding a bomb and his chowkidar was also seriously injured in incident - Informant has further stated that dacoits took away his Nokia 1210 mobile set with Aircel SIM and claimed that he can identify dacoits and looted articles - Whether they had seen appellant before – Held, court observe that section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives a valuable right to accused to offer explanation to incriminating circumstances appearing against him - But where prosecution evidence is on sloppy grounds and does not connect accused with crime silence of accused when he was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against him - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
1. Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010 was lodged on 14.08.2010 against 13-14 unknown persons. In the night of 13.08.2010, at about 11:30 P.M. unknown criminals committed dacoity in the house of Pradeep Kumar Prasad at village Jaintgarh and while leaving the village they exploded bombs to scare the villagers for their easy escape. On their way when Rajesh Kumar grappled with them the dacoits threw bomb on him and Rajesh Kumar got seriously injured. The fardbeyan of Pradeep Kumar Prasad was recorded in the early morning at 05:00 A.M. on 14.08.2010 at his village but before that an information was sent to the police station and accordingly sanha entry was made at 01:15 A.M. on 14.08.2010. The informant has stated that several unknown criminals were exploding bombs and threatening the villagers. They entered his house, committed marpit with him and on the gun point asked to hand over cash and jewelleries. After collecting valuables they left his house and on their way to escape caused injury to Rajesh Kumar by exploding a bomb and his chowkidar Chetan Pradhan was also seriously injured in the incident. The informant has further stated that the dacoits took away his Nokia 1210 mobile set with Aircel SIM No. 9853690631 and claimed that he can identify the dacoits and looted articles.
2. The investigating officer collected CDRs and on that basis came to village Khajouli at district Madhubani in the state of Bihar and got information from the officer-in-charge of Khajouli police station that Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Rajendra Sah, Luxman Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Baidnath Singh, Kunal Singh and Jitendra Singh were involved in loot-pat at village Jaintgarh. On the basis of such information Deepak Sarhan and Naresh Sahni were arrested and they suffered disclosure statements. At the pointing of Deepak Sarhan one silver chain, one golden nose pin and one mobile phone set bearing IMEI No. 354534010609642 with SIM No. 9631384605 were recovered from his house. On disclosure of Naresh Sahni one set of rold-gold bangle and one mobile phone set bearing IMEI No. 359559016834645 with SIM No. 8873765699 were recovered and seized in the presence of two independent witnesses. After the investigation charge sheet was submitted against Deepak Sarhan, Bablu Nishad, Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani and Naresh Sahni on 23.11.2010 under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act keeping the investigation pending against Rajendra Sah@ Raziya, Luxman Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Kamla @ Kamlesh Singh, Jitendra Chaudhary, Kunal Singh and Bidnath Singh. Three supplementary charge sheets were submitted thereafter - supplementary charge sheet dated 31.03.2011 against Jitendra Chaudhary, Rajendra Sah @ Raziya, Luxman Singh, Kamla @ Kamlesh Singh and Kunal Singh; supplementary charge sheet dated 31.10.2011 against Shiv Kumar Singh, and; supplementary charge sheet dated 31.07.2013 against Baidnath Singh. By an order dated 08.08.2012 charges were framed against Deepak Sarhan, Naresh Sahni, Bablu Nishad, Manik Chand Nishad @ Sahani, Kamlesh Singh, Kunal Singh, Jitendra Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Similar charges were framed against Baidanath Singh for committing the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 12.12.2013. The prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges in the trial and after the prosecution evidence was closed one accused, namely, Jitendra Singh jumped the bail and did not appear for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Kamlesh Singh who was in custody in Madhubani Jail inspite of production warrant and several letters for his production was not produced in this case and Kunal Singh, another accused, died during the trial and accordingly the case records of Kamlesh Singh and Jitendera Singh were separated whil
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India
Shiv Charan vs. State of Haryana
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam
Wasim Khan vs. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 400
Arjun Mahato vs. State of Bihar
Ghurelal vs. State of Rajasthan
Lalli @ Chiranjib Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal
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 conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.
The main legal point established is the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a test identification parade to strengthen the reliability of witness identification.
Identification proceedings are not conducted for pleasure of prosecution – It has got a valuable purpose even though identification test does not constitute substantive evidence.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.