Back
Allahbad High Court
G.D.SAHGAL
Ali Jan Imam Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Decided On : 02/07/1967
CRIMINAL LAW - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - RIGHT OF ACCUSED - IDENTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS - HELD DURING INVESTIGATION - NOT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE - USED FOR CORROBORATION OR CONTRADICTION OF EYE-WITNESS - NO RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO CLAIM IDENTIFICATION - COURT'S POWER TO ORDER IDENTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS - CIRCUMSTANCE OF PROSECUTION FALLING SHY OF HOLDING IDENTIFICATION PROCEEDING - CAN BE USED AS A CIRCUMSTANCE IN FAVOUR OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Ali Jan and Mahadeo were convicted for offences under Ss. 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under S. 399, five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under S. 402, and two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under S. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, with the sentences running concurrently. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were part of a gang of dacoits who were planning to commit dacoity at the house of one Paragi Gadaria. The police received information about the planned dacoity and raided the grove where the dacoits were gathered. The appellants were arrested at the spot and incriminating articles were recovered from their possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was reliable and established the occurrence of the raid. However, the court also found that the appellants were not positively identified by the witnesses. The court noted that the appellants had requested to be put up for identification before the witnesses, but their request was rejected by the magistrate. The court held that the rejection of the appellants' request for identification created an element of doubt in their participation in the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were members of the gang of dacoits who were planning to commit dacoity at the house of Paragi Gadaria? 2. Whether the appellants were arrested at the spot as claimed by the prosecution? 3. Whether the appellants were entitled to an identification parade? 4. Whether the rejection of the appellants' request for identification affected the reliability of the prosecution evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution evidence was reliable and established the occurrence of the raid. 2. The court found that the appellants were not positively identified by the witnesses. 3. The court held that an identification parade is not a right of the accused, but the court has the power to order identification proceedings if it thinks it is necessary in the interests of justice. 4. The court held that the rejection of the appellants' request for identification created an element of doubt in their participation in the crime.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and ordered their release from jail.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 13th of April, 1964 at about 6.45 P.M. Sub-Inspector V.D. Yadav (P.W. 15), Station Officer in charge Police Station Mitauli. received information from an informant that a dacoity was going to be committed at the house of one Paragi Gadaria in village Bojhia and that a gang of dacoits would collect for the purpose the grove of one Cheta Raidas in village Ghuraipurwa. Sub-Inspector Yadav made an entry as to it in the general diary. Soon after be deputed two Constables Shambhu Dayal and Nizamuddin to go to village Bojhia as a pre-autionary measure to guard the house of Paragi Gadaria and the village in general with muskets and twenty rounds each Both these facts have been mentioned in the general diary an extract from which has been filed in the case.
At 7.15 P.M. Sub-Inspector Yadav picked up a party consisting of Sub-Inspector K.B. Upreti, Second Officer, Clerk Constable Pratap Narain and six other Constables equipping them with sufficient arms and ammunition and took them along with him towards village Madaijurwa where they arrived at about 8 P.M. There six persons were taken from the public. The party thus swelled to 15. They proceeded to Ghuraipurwa arriving there at about 9 P.M. In that village twelve more witnesses were collected from the public out of whom Chaudhari Lal Raidas was holder of a gun licence while the others had lathis with them. Eleven of them had torches Each and every one of the police party had a torch with him. At the house of Babu Raidas in Ghuraipurwa the party of 27 was split up into three, of nine persons each. Party No. 1 was under the charge of Sub-Inspector Yadav himself, party No. 2 was put under the charge of Clerk Constable Pratap Narain and party No. 8 was under the charge of Sub-Inspector Upreti. He gave them instructions to quietly wait on the spot and to make a charge on his flashing his torch.
They proceeded to the grove of Cheta Raidas and after inspecting the locality Sub-Inspector Yadav stationed his party toward the west, party No. 2 towards the south and party No 3 towards the east in khains behind the cover of Patawar. He found a heap of straw collected to the north-west of the grove. He instructed Ram Naresh Constable to set fire to it on his flashing his torch. The parties took their positions at about half past 10 in the night and waited for the arrival of the dacoits from the north. The dacoits started coming in after they had waited for about an hour and a half. About 12 or 13 of them collected in the grove and started talking amongst themselves. They were talking, according to the prosecution case, with regard to their scheme or plan of committing dacoity at the house of Paragi Gadaria. It seemed as if they were waiting for the arrival of a few of their companions when some of them ex-pressed an apprehension that it was getting late, that they were already equipped with six arms and that they had to return to their respective places in the dark hour of the night.
It was, therefore, decided to make a move on the expectation that their companions might join them on the way. These talks confirmed the belief of Sub-Inspector Yadav that it was the gang of the dacoits regarding which the informer had given him information the previous evening. When Sub-Inspector Yadav found that they were about to move he gave a signal by flashing his torch. C
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
