Back
1987 Supreme(All) 579
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Umesha Chandra
Rajnath Singh
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL 789 of 1978
Decided On : 16 December 1987
Criminal Appeal 1050 Of 1978
P.N.MISHRA,
The court emphasized the importance of prompt identification of accused persons, the inclusion of identifying features in the first information report, and the duty of the Investigating Officer to take prompt action to apprehend the accused in order to ensure the reliability of identification evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DACOITY - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - EVIDENCE - SECTION 395 I. P. C. - FACTUM OF DACOITY - SOURCE OF LIGHT - PARTICIPATION OF ACCUSED - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - DESCRIPTION OF MISCREANTS - OMISSION FROM FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - LAPSE OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER - TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES - PERFORMANCE IN IDENTIFICATION PARADE - RELIABILITY - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
A dacoity was committed at the house of Sheo Shanker Tiwari in village Sakkapur, Ghazipur district, on the night between 5th and 6th May 1975. Four appellants were convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 I. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence in three connected appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the factum of dacoity was fully established by the prosecution. There was sufficient light in the house during the dacoity. The participation of one appellant, Munnu alias Monu, was not established. The identification of the other three appellants in the test parade was not reliable due to the lapse of time between the occurrence and the identification parade, the omission to mention the identifying features of the miscreants in the first information report, and the failure of the Investigating Officer to take prompt action to apprehend the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the factum of dacoity was established by the prosecution? 2. Whether there was sufficient light in the house during the dacoity? 3. Whether the participation of Munnu alias Monu in the dacoity was established? 4. Whether the identification of the other three appellants in the test parade was reliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the factum of dacoity was fully established by the prosecution based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the prompt lodging of a report of the occurrence, and the medical examination of the injured victims. 2. The court found that there was sufficient light in the house during the dacoity based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the discovery of lighted lanterns at the scene of the crime. 3. The court held that the participation of Munnu alias Monu in the dacoity was not established due to the lack of specific evidence against him and the omission of his name in the first information report. 4. The court found that the identification of the other three appellants in the test parade was not reliable due to the lapse of time between the occurrence and the identification parade, the omission to mention the identifying features of the miscreants in the first information report, and the failure of the Investigating Officer to take prompt action to apprehend the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges against them.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal, No. 789 of 1978, Criminal appeal no. 883 of 1978 and criminal appeal no. 1050 of 1978, directed against a judgment and order, dated 15/3/1978, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, convicting and sentencing all the four appellants to five years rigorous imprisonment under section 395 I. P. C.
( 2 ) THE case relates to the commission of a dacoity at the house of Sheo Shanker Tiwari in village Sakkapur police station Mardah, district Ghazipur in the night between 5th and 6th May 1975. According to the prosecution at about 12 Oclock in the night some 30 dacoits out of whom one was armed with a gun, the other with a knife and the remaining with lathis entered the house of Sheo Shanker Tiwari. They had also torches with them. It is alleged that the lighted lanterns were kept at the door of the house and the baithaka. The dacoits entered the house through the northern gate of the house and then reached the Sehan where Sheo Shanker Tiwari (P. W. 9) Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari (P. W. 2), Gauri Shanker Tiwari (P. W. 1) and Mahendra Tiwari (P. W. 10) were sleeping. The dacoits started tying them to their cots. Sheo Shanker Tiwari, however, managed to escape. He ran towards the village raising an alarm. The dacoits removed one of the door leaves of the door of the Zanana house and entered inside it. Some of them kept standing in the Sehan near the cots of Sheo Shanker Tiwari and others, who had been tied and they were continuously threatening them. Some residents of the village came near the house of Sheo Shanker Tiwari but the dacoits fired a shot at them as a result of which the villagers ran away out of fright, but they kept on raising alarms from a distance. The entire house was ransacked, cash, cloths and jewellery kept in the boxes were looted. The ladies of the house ran towards the village out of fear. These villagers who had collected there were flashing their torches. As the dacoits came out of the house with the looted property, they assaulted Gauri Shanker Tiwari and Mahendra Tiwari with lathis. After committing the dacoity the dacoits managed to run away to the southern side of the village. Munnu Passi son of Sakalu Passi, a resident of the same village was recognised. The other dacoits were not named in the report but it was alleged that their faces were very well seen in the light of the torches and lanterns.
( 3 ) A report of the occurrence was lodged by Sheo Shanker Tiwari at police station Mardah on 6/5/1975 at about 7. 05 A. M. , the place of occurrence being about one mile from the police station. Manu appellant has been named in the first information report. The prosecution case against rest of the appellants is based on the performance of the prosecution witnesses in the test parade. Shanker Saran Upadhya (P. W. 12) was the Thana Incharge, Mardah. Rajnath and Mahatim appellants were arrested by him on 28/8/1975 and on 7/9/1975 he made a report that they be put up for identification. Mohd. Jamal Khan (P. W. 15) was constable Moharrir at police station Birno when on 10/9/1975 he arrested appellant Ram Janam at the culvert of Alawalpur and brought him Baparda to Thana Birno where he was lodged. He was taken to jail on 11/9/1975. These three appellants were put up for identification on 15/10/1975, the identification parade being held by Sri B. B. Singh (P. W. 14) Ram Janam was correctly identified by Sheo Shanker Tiwari (P. W. 9) and Mahendra Tiwari (P. W. 10), and Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari (P. W. 2 ). All the three appellants were correctly identified by Mahendra Tiwari (P. W. 10) and Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari (P. W. 2 ).
( 4 ) AFTER a report of the identification parade was received by the Investigating Officer, who in the meanwhile had interrogated the other witnesses and prepared a site plan, he submitted a charge- sheet against all the appellants leading to their trial. It may be mentioned that Mahendra Tiwari and Gauri Shanker Tiwar
