IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, JJ.
Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 388 of 1984
Decided on : 27- 05- 2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 396 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 313, 162 and 395 - Evidence Act - Section 9 - Appeal against conviction - Miscreants looted money - Injuries - Identification parade - Benefit of doubt - Non identification by independent witnesses in the Court and vulnerability of the witnesses having been seen prior to the identification parade, create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to the fairness of the identification proceedings. [Para 64]
Finding of the Court:
P.W-3 in test identification parade held reported in Exhibit Ka-22 which itself is under cloud, inevitable conclusion that can be drawn in facts of the instant case that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for implication of accused appellant Rakesh in commission of offence punishable under Section 396 IPC - Accused appellant Rakesh herein is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and is to be acquitted for offence punishable under Section 396 IPC - Section 396 IPC, P.S District for offence punishable under Section 396 IPC and sentence.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL. J
1. Heard Sri Amrish Sahai learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri Patanjali Mishra learned A.G.A for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.1984 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial no.145 of 1993 arising out of Case Crime no.139 of 1982 under Section 396 IPC, P.S-Malwan, District-Fatehpur whereby sole appellant Rakesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The first report of the incident was given in writing by P.W-1-Naresh Chandra s/o Jagdish Chandra, a driver of the truck no.3901 URQ. The averments in the said report are that the first informant was driver of the aforesaid truck and on 14.10.1982, at about 2.00 a.m., while they were going to Bhogaon from Varanasi, three persons namely Suresh Chandra s/o Matadeen (second Driver) Shyam Singh s/o Puselal (Cleaner) and one Ram Sewak Dubey were sitting in his truck. At about 2.00 a.m., when they reached near the village Allipur in a convoy, about 3 kms away from the said village, the road was blocked by placing branches of Babool tree across the road. Seeing that, the first informant slowed down his vehicle (truck) and at that time, 8-10 miscreants armed with weapons gheraoed his vehicle pointing out Tamancha and Gun. The miscreants started looting money and then one of them fired which hit deceased Ram Sewak Dubey who died in the vehicle itself. The cleaner Shyam Singh got injuries in his right leg. The police personnel on convoy duty present in the vehicle behind namely Truck no. UTM 2400 also fired. The miscreants looted Rs.3800/-from the first informant and the persons sitting in the truck. It is stated in the written report that this incident was witnessed by the drivers of the vehicle No.UTM2400, Bhagwan Singh s/o Bhupal Singh and Lalaram s/o Ulfat Singh as also the driver of vehicle no.8030 HRU namely Laxman Singh s/o Chatur Singh as well as others present on the spot. It was stated in the written report that they all had seen and identified the assailants in the light of the trucks and they could identify the miscreants if they were brought before them. The body of the deceased Ram Sewak and the injured Shyam Singh (cleaner) were taken to the police station. The Check report and the GD entry of the report were proved by P.W-6 being in his writing and signature as Exhibit Ka-4 and 5. It was stated by P.W-6 that the written report was given by the first informant Naresh Chandra at about 2.30 a.m on 13/14.10.1982 who came along with the driver Suresh Chandra and injured cleaner Shyam Singh and also brought the dead body of Ram Sewak. Two constables Ramdeo Singh and Vinay Kumar who were on convoy duty came along with them.
4. The G.D entry of the movement of Constable Ramdeo Singh and Vinay Kumar from the Police Station on 13.10.1982 at about 9.30 p.m in Rapat no.32 was proved by P.W-6 being in his hand writing by bringing the original G.D and filing the copy with his signature proved as Exhibit Ka-3. In cross, P.W-6 stated that the convoy used to be prepared in front of the police station, one Constable used to make the convoy and two Constables accompany it. On confrontation, it was stated, in cross, by P.W-6, that G.D entries of the duty of the Constables, on convoy duty, was before him and as per the GD dated 17.10.1982, Constable Vinay Kumar was on Santri duty from 6.00 p.m till 9.00 p.m and Constable Ramdeo was on Convoy duty from 17.10.1982 at 19.00 hours till 18.10.1982 at 4.00 a.m. However, the movement of these constables from the police station on the said dates ie 17.10.1982-18.10.1982 was not recorded in the GD.
5. The written report of the incident reported by P.W-1 was read over to him during his deposition before the Court, who admitted his signature and handwriting on the same, it was proved as Exhibit Ka-1. After lodging of the report, blood from inside the truck, found on
Asharfi vs State reported in AIR 1961 All 153
Rameshwar Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (1971) 2 SCC 715
Ram Babu vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 63
R. Shaji vs State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266
Matru vs State of U.P reported in (1971) 2 SCC 75
Santokh Singh vs Izhar Hussain reported in (1973) 2 SCC 406
Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1958 SC 350)
Vaikuntam Chandrappa and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 1340
Budhsen and another v. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1321)
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1972 SC 102)
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
The reliability of eye-witness testimonies and the test identification parade in establishing the guilt of the accused.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) undermines the reliability of dock identification, making it insufficient for conviction in acquittal appeals.
(1) Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. Burden of proof of guilt of accused is upon prosecution. It must stand by itself. (2) Cr.P.C does not oblige investigati....
Conviction set aside - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. The burden of proof of guilt of an accused is upon the prosecution -It must stand by itself.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.