HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Ram Swarup @Chhotey Chela – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1985
Decided On : 29-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural and factual foundation of the prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding identification and custodial facts. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 3. establishment of the incident details and promptness of the fir. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. analysis of the test identification parade (tip) and its reliability. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. judicial standards for evaluating dock identification and tip evidentiary value. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 6. insufficient identification evidence leads to acquittal when doubts persist. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is directed by appellant Ram Swarup alias Chhotey Chela alias Mehtab Singh against the judgment and order of Mr. R.C. Gupta, the then Special Judge (Anti-Dacoity), Jalaun at Orai, dated 08.01.1985 passed in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1983, State v Ram Swaroop, arising out of Case Crime No.503 of 1982, under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 14 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act No.31 of 1983, Police Station- Konch, District- Jalaun.
2. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant Ram Swarup has been held guilty and convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 14 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act No. 31 of 1983. The appellant was however, not found guilty for offences punishable under Section 365 read with 511 IPC and Section 10/12 of U.P. Ordinance No.2 of 1983 and was accordingly, acquitted of the said offences.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the first informant, Ram Prakash son of Ram Ratan Gupta, a resident of Village- Kanausi, Police Station- Konch, District- Jalaun, filed a written application (tehrir) dated 17.12.1982 (Ext. Ka-3), before Incharge Police Station- Konch, District- Jalaun, stating therein that today i.e. on 17.12.1982 he was at his shop alongwith his mother Smt. Ram Pyari and servant Ram Singh son of Badri Kacchi. Kachare son of Teejan Kacchi and some persons, to wit, Prabhu son of Sewak Nai and Mahaveer Singh son of Manohar Singh were also present, as customers, in the first informant’s shop. A light was there in and outside the shop. At about 06:15 p.m., four miscreants climbed up on the shop’s platform (chabutara) wearing khakhi clothes. Out of them, two miscreants entered the shop, caught hold of his hand and tried to drag him outside. The first informant became nervous and shouted why he would go outside and pulled down one miscreant, by twisting his leg. Two miscreants, who were standing outside the shop opened fire employing their firearms, causing injuries to his mother, who fell down onto the floor of the shop. Upon their hue and cry and hearing the shots rang out, people rushed towards the shop. This led all the four miscreants too flee towards the North. None of those present, could apprehend the miscreants fearing for their lives. His mother died instantly and he had seen all the four miscreants clearly in the light, whom he can identify if they were produced before him. All the miscreants were young, and one of them was tall.
4. Upon this information, an FIR under Section 302 IPC in Case Crime No.503 of 1982 was lodged at Police Station- Konch on 17.12.1983 at about 09:30 p.m. against four unknown men. After lodging the FIR, the investigation was commenced by S.P. Singh the Station House Officer, Police Station- Konch, who reached the place of occurrence and collected blood stained and plain earth; blood stained clothes of the first informant; empty cartridges and missed cartridges; and a shoe of one of the miscreants from the place of occurrence. He prepared fard baramadagi Ext. Ka-8 to Ext. Ka-11, respectively. After recording the statement of first informant,
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The identification of the accused in the open Court is a substantive evidence, while the conduct of identification parade during the investigation has a corroborative value.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
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.