SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(All) 164

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LUCKNOW BENCH :
H. SHANKAR AND A. N. MULLA, JJ.
Anwar and another - Appellants
v.
State - Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 814 and 839 of 1954
Decided on : 10 -6 -1957

Advocates appeared:
Saraswati Pd., for Appellants; Asst. Govt. Advocate, for the State.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - IDENTIFICATION - EVIDENCE - ASSESSMENT - RULES OF CAUTION - NUMBER OF UNDER-TRIALS TO BE MIXED WITH SUSPECT - MISTAKES COMMITTED BY WITNESSES IN OTHER PARADES - RELEVANCE - INVESTIGATION TAINTED - EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION - ACCEPTABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Two dacoities were committed in two different villages on the same night. The dacoits were armed with pistols, guns, spears and lathis. Several persons were injured in the dacoities. The police arrested several suspects and conducted identification parades. The trial court convicted three of the suspects under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the convictions of the three appellants and acquitted them. The court held that the investigation was tainted and that the evidence of identification was not reliable. The court also held that the trial court erred in ignoring the mistakes committed by the witnesses in other identification parades.

Issues: 1. Whether the investigation was tainted? 2. Whether the evidence of identification was reliable? 3. Whether the trial court erred in ignoring the mistakes committed by the witnesses in other identification parades?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the investigation was tainted because: a. The first information report was a dressed up version and did not contain a proper description of the dacoits. b. The police failed to interrogate the witnesses properly to obtain a description of the dacoits. c. The police arrested Balram Das, who was not involved in the dacoities, and tried to implicate him in the case. d. The police suppressed the dying declaration of Chakkar, who was one of the victims of the dacoities, which named one Dirgaj Singh as one of the dacoits. 2. The court held that the evidence of identification was not reliable because: a. The number of under-trials mixed with the suspects in the identification parades was insufficient. b. The witnesses made mistakes in other identification parades. c. The investigation was tainted, which raised doubts about the credibility of the witnesses. 3. The court held that the trial court erred in ignoring the mistakes committed by the witnesses in other identification parades. The court held that these mistakes were relevant to the assessment of the witnesses' power of observation and memory.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the convictions of the three appellants and acquitted them.

JUDGMENT :

A. N. MULLA, J. :- An armed dacoity was committed at the house of one Ramratan, a resident of village Bechepurwa, police station Kotwali, Lakhimpur, district Kheri, on the night between the 19th and the 20th of February, 1953. Ramratan resided with his brothers Bahuram and Ram Autar and other members of the family in separate portions of the same house. At about midnight Ramratan was disturbed in his sleep when a dacoit jumped inside the house and unchained the door. Immediately afterwards, 10 or 12 more dacoits entered the house through the main door. These dacoits were armed with pistols, guns, spears and lathis. Seeing the dacoits, Ramratan shouted and his brothers rushed into the courtyard. One of the dacoits fired a shot which hit Baburam. The dacoits then started plundering and this gave an opportunity to Ramratan to slip out of the house. He raised an alarm and, as a result, the neighbours collected and some one set fire to the cattle-shed of Ramratan.

During the course of the dacoity the residents of village Mathurapurwa, which is at a distance of about 3 or 4 furlongs from Bechepurwa, also arrived. The burning cattle-shed threw a bright light and the villagers outside saw the features of the dacoits in this light. When the dacoits came out after collecting the looted property, they were pursued by the villagers and then the dacoits fired some shots which injured some villagers including Kumari Maikin. The dacoits could not be pursued after that and they escaped.

2. After committing dacoity at Bechepurwa the dacoits went to village Mathurapurwa and committed another dacoity at the house of Khushi Ram, a resident of that village. In this dacoity also there was an encounter between the dacoits and the villagers. Ramratan as well as other residents of Bechepurwa, when they came to know that a dacoity was being committed at Mathurapurwa, went there. In the encounter that ensued two persons named Inder Bahadur and Chakkardin lost their lives. None of the dacoits could, however, be apprehended and they escaped.

3. Next morning, Ramratan lodged the first information report at police station Kotwali, Lakhimpur, at 10.45 A.M. Lakhimpur is about six miles from village Bechepurwa. Ramratan had gone on a bullock cart with all the injured persons when he lodged the report. No report was lodged by Khushi Ram separately and it was Ramratan who lodged a comprehensive report in which the facts of both the dacoities were mentioned. When the encounter had taken place at Mathurapurwa, the dacoits had left behind some articles and they were taken by Ramratan to police station Kotwali when he went there. Several used cartridges, two fountain pens, one old chadar and a lathi were the articles which were deposited by Ramratan when he lodged the report.

4. The investigation of these two crimes which were recorded as one was conducted by Sri Raj Kumar Singh, the second officer of police station Kotwali, Lakhimpur. He first went to Mathurapurwa and there prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Inder Bahadur. Chakkar who was still alive was sent to hospital. After conducting some preliminary investigation at Mathurapurwa, he came to Bechepurwa and prepared site plans of both the scenes of the dacoities. Thereafter he examined witnesses and sent the injured persons to Lakhimpur for medical examination of their injuries. The dead body of Inder Bahadur was also sent to Lakhimpur mortuary for post mortem examination.

5. As a result of his investigations, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the same gang of dacoits had committed both the dacoities. The chadar that was left behind by the dacoits was shown by him to persons at Baragaon, a big village, which is four miles away from the scene of the dacoities. This chadar was identified by some persons as that of Anwar appellant. He thereupon arrested Anwar appellant on the 4th of March, 1953. Faqirey, another appellant in this case, was arrested on the 3rd of April, 1953.

6.












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top