Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 1240
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
State by Public Prosecutor & Others - Appellant
Versus
Devendran & Others - Respondents
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1011 AND 1012 OF 1995 AND CRL.REVISION CASE NO.622 OF 1994
Decided On : 08 August 2003
Procedural errors in the identification parade and lack of evidence can lead to the acquittal of accused individuals, while being caught red-handed can establish guilt.
Headnote:
Identification Parade - Criminal Law - Section 395, Section 451, Section 398 IPC - The court discussed the identification parade and the recovery of cycles, highlighting the procedural errors and lack of evidence to connect A2 to A4 to the crime, leading to their acquittal. A1 was found guilty under Section 451 IPC based on evidence of being caught red-handed with a cycle, leading to the confirmation of the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused entered the house with the intention of committing dacoity, resulting in injuries to the occupants. A1 was caught red-handed with a cycle, leading to the trial court's conviction. The appellate court acquitted A2 to A4 due to procedural errors in the identification parade and lack of evidence to connect them to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found A1 guilty under Section 451 IPC based on being caught red-handed with a cycle. A2 to A4 were acquitted due to procedural errors in the identification parade and lack of evidence to connect them to the crime.
Issues: Procedural errors in the identification parade, lack of evidence to connect A2 to A4 to the crime, and A1's guilt based on being caught red-handed.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural errors in the identification parade and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of A2 to A4. A1's guilt was established based on being caught red-handed with a cycle.
Final Decision: Both criminal appeals and the criminal revision case were dismissed, affirming the acquittal of A2 to A4 and the conviction of A1 under Section 451 IPC.
COMMON JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall govern both criminal appeals, namely, C.A.Nos.1011 and 1012 of 1995 and criminal revision case No.622 of 1994.
2. These two criminal appeals have been brought forth by the State challenging the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem acquitting A2 to A4 in respect of all the charges levelled against them and A1 in respect of the charge under Section 395 IPC, while of them were found guilty by the trial court, namely, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari where they stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sections 395 and 451 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI each under Section 451 IPC and 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.1500/- in default one year RI each under Section 395 IPC. The first accused on the affirmation of conviction and sentence under Section 451 IPC by the Sessions Court has brought forth the criminal revision case.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals and revision case can be stated as follows:
a) On 7.9.1987 at about 11.30 p.m. the accused 1 to 4 along with two others rang the calling bell of P.W.1's house situated at Pullipalayam. P.W.1 Appukounder, on hearing the sound woke up, switched on the lights and opened the door of the house. A1 to A6 suddenly got entry into the house with an intention of committing dacoity in the house of P.W.1. All the six accused asked P.W.1 where he has kept the jewels and cash and to show the same. Selvakumar, who was one of the absconding accused pushed P.W.1 into his bedroom and threatened him at the point of Aruval if P.W.1 does not give any jewels or cash, they would kill the entire family of P.W.1. When P.W.1 refused, Selvakumar attacked him with Aruval on his left side neck. P.W.2, Pavayi the wife of P.W.1 prevented the said attack and she also sustained injuries on her right hand. P.W.1 asked his daughter Nirmala, who was not examined, to get the revlver in order to scare the accused. The said Nirmala rushed into the kitchen to make the accused believe as if she would get the revolver. Immediately, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence by leaving M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.2 one pair chappals and M.O.3 one towel by using four bicycles M.O.4 to M.O.7.
b) P.W.1 chased all the accused with the help of P.W.4 Sembulingam, the lorry driver. P.W.1 was able to catch A1 along with M.O.5 bicycle. It was informed to P.W.13 Soundararajan Sub Inspector of Police through phone at about 12.00 p.m. P.W.13 on receipt of information proceeded to Narayanapalayam and examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement under Ex.P.1. He arrested A1 at about 1.00 a.m. On 8.9.1987 and recovered bicycle M.O.5 under Ex.P.4 in front of P.W.7 Chinnagounder and another witness. He sent P.W.1 and P.W.2 with medical memo to the Government Hospital, Sangagiri where P.W.15 Dr.Gnanasekaran examined P.W.2 at about 1.40 a.m. and issued Ex.P.17 Accident Register. At about 1.55 a.m. the Doctor examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.18 Accident Register.
c) P.w.13 brought A1 to the Police Station and on the strength of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.527 of 1987 under Section 398 IPC. Express printed F.I.R Ex.P.14 was despatched to the concerned court, while the copies were sent to higher officials. P.W.14 Manickam, Inspector of Police, Sangagiri Police Station took up investigation. On 8.9.1997 he proceeded to the site of occurrence at about 4.30 a.m. and prepared Ex.P.5 observation mahazar and Ex.P.5 rough sketch in front of P.W.8 Kandasamy Village Administrative Officer and other witness. P.W.14 examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He recovered M.O.1 to M.O.3 under Ex.P.6 in front of P.W.8 and another witness. Then, P.W.14 on information proceeded to Thiruchencode where M.Os.4 and 6 cycles were recovered under Ex.P.7 from the cycle shop of P.Ws.6 and 7. P.W.14 examined P.Ws.5,6,7,4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He interrogated A1 and recorded A1's voluntary co
