Prosecution must adhere to proper identification procedures; failure to conduct Test Identification Parades and reliance on inadequate evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, vide judgment dated 09.07.2019 in S.C.No.107 of 2016, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

2.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused/appellants and a juvenile accused are known to each other; that the accused conspired to commit robbery in the house of the deceased after murdering him; that pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 05.11.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused took the juvenile accused from Aroor Bus Stand and got down at T-Andiyur Bus Stand and went to the house of the deceased at about 11.00 p.m. on the same day; that they trespassed into the house; A1 sat on the leg of the deceased and smothered him with the pillow; that the juvenile accused closed the face of PW2-wife of the deceased with a bed sheet, and he took the earring of PW2; and that thereafter, he attacked PW2 with the safety pin and also took away the cell phones of the deceased and PW2, besides a torch light in the house.

(ii) PW1, son of the deceased, who was residing at Salem, on coming to know that his father was done to death by the robbers and had taken a gold earring of his mother, came to the house at about 2.45 a.m., on 06.11.2014 and took his mother to the hospital and thereafter, lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] at about 7.00 a.m., on 06.11.2014. PW13 the Sub Inspector of Police registered the FIR [Ex.P.10] in Cr.No.217 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 302 , 396 and 307 of the IPC.

(iii) PW18, the investigating officer, took up the investigation, went to the scene of the occurrence on 06.11.2014 at 8.00 a.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P25] . He also sought the assistance of the photographer and the sniffer dog squad. He took the assistance of the fingerprint expert and found four chance prints in the door of the house and in the cup board [almirah]. He seized the pillow (M.O.5) under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3]. He conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, in the presence of the panchayathars and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P19]. Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem, which was conducted by PW14, who had issued Ex.P12-Postmortem certificate. He took steps to compare the chance fingerprints taken at the scene of the occurrence with the fingerprints of the suspects available at the police station. However, the fingerprints did not tally with that of any of the suspects.

(iv) On 12.11.2014, PW18 obtained the wound certificate of PW2 and examined the doctor, who treated her. On 14.11.2014, on the confession given by PW7, he arrested A1 and on his confession, he learnt that A2 and the juvenile accused were also involved in the occurrence. On the confession of A1, he seized a gold earring with a white stone weighing 6 grams, from A1 at Keezh Chengapadu Bus Stand. Thereafter, he sent the fingerprints taken at the time of arrest to the fingerprint expert for comparison. After recording the statements of other witnesses and the fingerprint expert, he altered the offence as under Sections 120(B), 448, 392, 392 r/w 397, 302 and 307 r/w 109 of the IPC. The alteration report is marked as Ex.P26. On completion of investigation, he filed the final report against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aroor (v) On the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.107 of 2016 an