Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.K. MEHROTRA, J.
Soran - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 1979 connected with Cr. Appeal No. 1273 of 1979
Decided on : Apr 21, 1980
Identification Evidence - Reliability - Circumstances of Identification - Absence of Peculiar Features or Outstanding Role - Possibility of Outside Agency Influencing Identification - Benefit of Doubt.
Fact of the Case:
A dacoity was committed at the house of Babu Lal in village Kalupur Imloth, Aligarh district. Several persons were identified as participants in the dacoity, including appellants Ram Lal, Soran, Jai Singh, and Sheodan. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and identification evidence to secure convictions under Section 395 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification evidence against the appellants was unreliable. The witnesses who identified the appellants did not mention any peculiar features or outstanding role of the appellants during the dacoity that would make their recognition by so many persons without mistake possible. The court also noted that the appellants were residents of the same village and their houses were in the vicinity of the house where the dacoity took place, yet none of the dacoits made any effort to conceal their identity.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification evidence against the appellants was reliable. 2. Whether the appellants had any motive to commit the dacoity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification evidence against the appellants was doubtful and unreliable. The witnesses who identified the appellants did not mention any peculiar features or outstanding role of the appellants during the dacoity that would make their recognition by so many persons without mistake possible. The court also noted that the appellants were residents of the same village and their houses were in the vicinity of the house where the dacoity took place, yet none of the dacoits made any effort to conceal their identity. The court further held that the appellants had not been able to establish any direct enmity with the victim of the dacoity or the witnesses who had named them as the dacoits, and the possibility of their inclusion in the list of dacoits due to ill will with the Gram Pradhan could not be ruled out.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. Appellants Soran, Jai Singh, and Ram Lal were released on bail, and appellant Sheodan was ordered to be set at liberty unless required in connection with some other case.
V.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgement dated February 8, 1979 of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in sessions trial no. 341 of 1977.
2. ON the night between September 20 and 21, 1976 a dacoity was committed at the house of Babu Lal son of Bhupal Singh of village Kalupur Imloth lying within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jawan in district Aligarh. A large number of persons are said to have committed this dacoity which they are said to have caused injuries to some of the inmates of the house and have carried away some properties.
The village where the dacoity took place is at a distance of about 5 miles from police station Jawan where a report about the dacoity was lodged at 6.20 p. m. on September 21, 1976 by PW 1 Babu Lal. In this report he mentioned that Ram Lal, Soran, Jai Singh of his village appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 1979 were amongst the dacoits, In regard to the others, it was mentioned that they could be recognised by him if seen later. The names of various persons of the village, including those of PW: 5 Kunwar Pal and PW 6 Shiv Charan, were mentioned amongst those who had arrived at the scene and had witnessed the commission of the dacoity.
3. SUB-Inspector Tej Pal Sharrma (PW 8), who has investigated the case, arrested appellants Ram Lal and Soran on September 22, 1976. It is said that during their interrogation he learnt about the complicity of Sheodan who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 1979. Sheodan was arrested by the Investigating Officer on September 25, 1976 at about 9.00 p. m. and made baparda. He was eventually lodged in the District Jail, Aligarh on September 26, 1976. During this period, according to the prosecution, he was through out under cover and no one had any opportunity of seeing him.
4. PW 10 Sri B. P. Mathur was Executive Magistrate at Aligarh on November 18, 1976. On that date he conducted the test indentification proceeding in respect of Sheodan in the District Jail, Aligarh. Sheodan was put up for indentification along with ten similar under trials and with due precautions. He was correctly indentifled by ten persons which included PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 4 Kaliyan Singh, PW 5 Kunwar Pal and PW 6 Sheo Charan. Other six persons who correctly identified him, namely, Bhudeo, Ram Chandra, Makkhan Singh, Chhatra Pal, Doji Ram and Siya Ram have, however, not been produced as witnesses in the case. None of these ten persons committed any mistake.
At the trial, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in support of its case Four of them, namely, Babu Lal, Kaliyan Singh, Kunwar Pal and Sheo Charan gave eye witness account of the occurrence and also identified appellant Sheodan as one of the decocts. They named the three appellants in criminal appeal No. 616 of 1979 as participants in the dacoity. Relying upon the evidence so produced, the trial Judge convicted these four persons under section 395 IPC and sentenced them each to a term of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, all the four persons have come up to this Court by way of these appeals.
5. IT is in the evidence of PW 4 Kaliyan Singh, who is real brother of PW 1 Babu Lal and who also claimed to be sleeping near Babu Lal on the night of the dacoity outside their house, that appellants, Soran and Jai Singh are Khandani brothers and appellants Ram Lal is related to them as their 'phupha'. IT is also clear from his evidence that the house of appellants Soran and Jai Singh are near the baithak of the complainant. The house of Ram Lal is to the east of their house but cattle are tied near thereto. IT is further clear from his evidence that during the commission of dacoity the traces of the dacoits were not covered and none of them had taken any precaution to conceal their identity.
6. HAVING regard to the admitted position that these three appellants are residents of the same village in which the dacoity took place and their houses are in the vicinity of the hou
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
