Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
Balaji & Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.390 and 418 of 1995
Decided On : 30 January 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ROBBERY - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - DELAY - EXPLANATION - IDENTIFICATION TEST PARADE - CONDUCT - LAPSE IN PROCEDURE - EFFECT - INJURIES SUSTAINED BY VICTIMS - DESCRIPTION OF WEAPONS - DISCREPANCIES - MINOR DISCREPANCIES - EFFECT - F.I.R. - VALUE - MATERIAL OBJECTS - FINGER PRINT TEST - ABSENCE OF REPORT - EFFECT - BLOOD STAINED WEAPONS - SEROLOGIST'S REPORT - ABSENCE OF REPORT - EFFECT - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - JUDICIAL CAUTION - STANDARD OF PROOF - GREATER THE CRIME, GREATER SHOULD BE THE STANDARD OF PROOF - WITNESSES - COMPANY OF WITNESS WITH INVESTIGATION TEAM - EXPLANATION - ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION - EFFECT - MAHAZAR WITNESS - CONTINUOUS PRESENCE - EXPLANATION - ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION - EFFECT - INJURED EYE WITNESSES - EVIDENCE - RANKING - FALSE IMPLICATION - POSSIBILITY - TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES - ENMITY - ABSENCE OF MOTIVE - EFFECT - EYE WITNESSES - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - INJURED EYE WITNESSES - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - ACCIDENT REGISTERS - MEDIC-LEGAL EXAMINATION REPORTS - MATERIAL OBJECTS - RECOVERY - ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - PRESUMPTION - SECTION 114(3) ILLUSTRATION (A) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - IDENTIFICATION TEST PARADE - DELAY - EXPLANATION - CONDITION OF WITNESS - GRAVE INJURIES - DELAY IN CONDUCTING IDENTIFICATION TEST PARADE - JUSTIFICATION - IDENTIFICATION TEST PARADE - CONDUCT - LAPSE IN PROCEDURE - EFFECT - IDENTIFICATION TEST PARADE - CONDUCT - SUFFICIENT CAUTION BY JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE - CONFIRMATION - NECESSITY - EYE WITNESSES - EVIDENCE - SCRUTINY - JOINT ATTACK - EXTORTION - CASH BAG - SNATCHING - SHOULDER REXIN BAG - RUNNING AWAY - INJURIES SUSTAINED BY VICTIMS - GRAVITY - DEADLY WEAPONS - USE - OPINION OF DOCTOR - CORROBORATION - INJURIES - DESCRIPTION - DISCREPANCIES - EFFECT - F.I.R. - SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE - DETAILS OF OCCURRENCE - MENTIONING - NECESSITY - CHANCE WITNESS - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - MATERIAL OBJECTS - FINGER PRINT TEST - ABSENCE OF REPORT - EFFECT - BLOOD STAINED WEAPONS - SEROLOGIST'S REPORT - ABSENCE OF REPORT - EFFECT - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - REASONABLE DOUBT - JUDICIAL CONSCIENTIOUS MIND - OBJECTIVITY - CONVICTION - JUSTIFICATION - APPEALS - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 392 r/w 397, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. for robbery, causing grievous injuries, causing hurt and criminal intimidation respectively. The prosecution case was that the appellants robbed a bus conductor and driver of Rs.3,000/- and caused grievous injuries to them by using deadly weapons. The appellants were arrested based on the confession statement of one of the appellants and the material objects were recovered from them. The appellants denied the charges and contended that they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence of the injured eye witnesses, eye witnesses, Mahazar witness, investigating Officer, and medical evidence corroborated with each other. The court also found that the absence of the report for the finger prints of the accused on the material objects or the absence of Serologist's report with respect to the blood stains found on the material objects could not be a justification to reject the evidence of the witnesses. The court further found that the delay in conducting the identification test parade was justified as the victims had sustained grave injuries and were hospitalized for a month. The court also found that the lapse in procedure in the identification test parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate was not a ground to reject the evidence of the witnesses. The court held that the appellants were jointly responsible for the attack on the victims and the robbery.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification test parade was conducted with sufficient caution and in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the delay in conducting the identification test parade was justified? 3. Whether the evidence of the injured eye witnesses and eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy? 4. Whether the evidence of the Mahazar witness and the investigating Officer was reliable and trustworthy? 5. Whether the medical evidence corroborated with the evidence of the witnesses? 6. Whether the absence of the report for the finger prints of the accused on the material objects and the absence of Serologist's report with respect to the blood stains found on the material objects could be a justification to reject the evidence of the witnesses? 7. Whether the appellants were jointly responsible for the attack on the victims and the robbery?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The identification test parade was conducted with sufficient caution and in accordance with the law. The delay in conducting the identification test parade was justified as the victims had sustained grave injuries and were hospitalized for a month. The evidence of the injured eye witnesses and eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of the Mahazar witness and the investigating Officer was reliable and trustworthy. The medical evidence corroborated with the evidence of the witnesses. The absence of the report for the finger prints of the accused on the material objects and the absence of Serologist's report with respect to the blood stains found on the material objects could not be a justification to reject the evidence of the witnesses. The appellants were jointly responsible for the attack on the victims and the robbery.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
Heard.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.3.1995 made in S.C.No.32 of 1994 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani. Criminal Appeal No.390 of 1995 is preferred by the fourth accused and Criminal Appeal No.418 of 1995 is preferred by accused 1 to 3 in the said Sessions Case No.32 of 1994. Since both the appeals arise from the same judgment dated 8.3.1995 made in S.C.No.32 of 1994, they were heard and disposed of together.
3.1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of one Thiru.Thangavelu (P.W.1) and Thiru.Balaraman (P.W.2), who are working as Conductor and Driver, respectively, of a bus bearing Registration No.PY-01 9798 plying between Pondicherry and Thirupathi, operated by Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation, is stated, in brief, as follows:
3.2. The bus bearing Registration No.PY-01 9798 owned by Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation while plying between Thirupathi and Pondicherry was returning from Thirupathi to Pondicherry on the night of 20.1.1994. It reached Vandavasi at about 1.45 a.m. on 21.1.1994. After a break of 10 minutes for tea at Vandavasi, it proceeded to Pondicherry. Within ten minutes when the bus was nearing Maruthuvambadi Cross Road, the accused, who were standing near the Conductor(P.W.1), assaulted him (P.W.1). The passengers screamed loudly. The Driver (P.W.2) switched on the light, questioned the assault by the accused and stopped the vehicle. Immediately, the accused attacked the Driver (P.W.2) by using knives and snatched away a blue colour leather cash bag (M.O.1) from P.W.1, containing the collection of the bus fare; took a brown colour rexin bag (M.O.2), containing one white shirt (M.O.3), one blue colour checked lungi (M.O.4), a small towel (M.O.5) and the identity card (M.O.6) of the Conductor and fled away on seeing a lorry coming from the opposite direction, in which one Ameed of Vandavasi Town, a fruit merchant, was travelling. The said Ameed (P.W.5) shifted the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) in the said lorry to Vandavasi Bus Stand, from where P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, by a police constable Ganesan (P.W.6), who was on beat duty at Vandavasi bus stand.
3.3. Both the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) were admitted in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi by Dr.I.Ramalingam (P.W.11) at 3.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994 and P.W.11 issued Accident Registers Exs.P15 and 16 recording the injuries on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. In the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, P.W.1 gave a statement about the occurrence (Ex.P.1) at about 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994, and the same was recorded by a Police Constable T.L.Paulraj (P.W.13), based on which P.W.13 registered a First Information Report (Ex.P.19). After giving first aid in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, P.Ws.1 and 2 were referred to the General Hospital, Pondicherry, for further management and treatment. Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the General Hospital, Pondicherry, in the casualty ward by Dr.P.Muthayan (P.W.12), who issued the Medicolegal Examination Reports, marked as Exs.P.17 and 18 with respect to the wounds found on the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2).
3.4. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police at Vandavasi, K.R.Natesan (P.W.14) undertook investigation on the FIR (Ex.P.19), went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.20) in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer(P.W.7), of Illangadu Village. As per Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar, the occurrence had taken place 4 kms. away on the southern side of Vandavasi Police Station in Vandavasi to Tindivanam Road near Maruthuvampadi Cross Road, where the bus PY-01 9798 belonging to the Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation was standing in the middle of the road towards Tindivanam. P.W.14 in his Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) recorded that he noticed blood
AI
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
