Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. Gupta, J.
Annu @ Ansingh & Anr.
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cr. A. No. 462 of 1994 (J)
Decided On: 03.05.1997
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Manish Datt, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. R.A. Robertson, G.A., For State
Dock identification of the accused, unless corroborated by other evidence, is not sufficient to convict them of dacoity.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - DACOITY - SECTION 395, 397 IPC - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - DOCK IDENTIFICATION - CORROBORATION - MINIMUM SENTENCE - SECTION 397 IPC - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for dacoity under sections 395 and 397 IPC. They challenged the conviction on the ground that the identification of the accused in the dock was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dock identification by the witnesses, unless there is a specific reason to identify any of the accused by any special deformity or by special circumstance, cannot be sufficient ground to convict the accused who are totally unknown to the witnesses. The evidence of dock identification needs corroboration which can come from the test identification parade or any other independent sources.
Issues: Whether the dock identification of the accused was sufficient to convict them of dacoity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dock identification of the accused was not sufficient to convict them of dacoity as it was not corroborated by any other evidence. The court also held that section 397 IPC does not define a separate offence but lays down the minimum sentence for offence under section 392 or S. 395 in a particular circumstance of use of dangerous weapon or causing certain injury by a particular accused person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants of the charges against them.
R.P. Gupta, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 17.2.94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, district Khandwa. By this judgment in Session Trial No. 68/92, the learned trial Court convicted all these appellants in 7 appeals for having committed the offences of dacoity punishable under section 395 read with section 397 of the I. P. C, as it was a case of use of dangerous weapons by the dacoit-appellants. All the appellants were sentenced to R. I. for 10 years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of fine, further R. I. for 2 months for offence under section 395 I.P.C. and separate sentence of R.I. for 7 years under section 397 I.P.C.
2. It is apparent that the trial court has committed a legal error in passing separate sentence under section 395 and 397 I.P.C. as section 397 I.P.C. is only an enabling section which provides for minimum sentence of 7 years in case it is attracted for an offender who committed an offence under section 395 I.P.C. But that will be a matter to be considered after deciding whether the appellants have committed offence.
3. The trial Court found that on 26.6.91, these appellants at about 7.30 P. M., on a road leading from Asirgarh to Nepa Nagar, in an area near Burhanpur, put a wire across the road so as to obstruct the unwarranted traffic in order to loot the passangers. They waited for the victim to get into trap. P. W. 1 Suresh riding on a motor cycle bearing No. MBM - 5759, along with his daughter Pushpa, P. W. 2, was proceeding on that road. His motor -cycle struck against the wire set light across road, as it was not visible due to darkness. Motor-cycle fell down and both of them also fell down and suffered injuries. These appellants and another (now absconding) pounced upon them and hit them with wooden sticks. Suresh was given five injuries -2 on head, one on the back, one on thigh and one more. Pushpa suffered a bruise injury, abrasion and contusion on elbow and arm. One pairs of tops, which Pushpa was wearing, was looted from her and one pair ear rings, which she was carrying in a purse, was also looted. Rs. 1,000/- in cash, which were with Suresh, were also looted. Then the accused escaped, from there.
4. All these appellants were arrested on 24.10.91. They were interrogated. An attempt was made to find out the whereabouts of the looted property, but nothing could be recovered. It appears that no test-identification parade was arranged and on the basis of the statement of the two witnesses, they were sent up for trial.
5. Learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence of the two witnesses about identification of the dacoits in the dock and so they have been convicted.
6. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the identification in dock took place after a long period, after the event, and this is very feeble evidence and cannot be acted upon for conviction, without corroboration by an earlier test identification parade in which the witnesses might have identified the accused. Even such an identification parade has to be properly held after proper safeguard that the witnesses have no occasion to meet or see the accused after their arrest. It is argued that there is no other evidence whatsoever in this case to support the assertion of these witnesses that these appellant-accused committed dacoity, and so they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
7. Some evidence was produced that a purse was recovered from Annu and the test identification was held by the Sarpanch P. W. 6 Chhabildas in which, Suresh identified the purse as his purse which was looted at that time. However, in evidence in court, Suresh did not speak a word about the purse having been looted from him or that the recovered purse was his purse. This negligence should not have been adopted by the prosecution. A perusal of his statement clearly shows that no question was put about the purse by the prosecution itself. Thus, apart from the identifica
