Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1 The appellants were the accused nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.167 of 2007. There were three more accused in the said case. The appellants and the other accused were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under section 395 IPC read with section 397 IPC, 342 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palghar, after holding the trial, by a judgment and order dated 18 March 2009, convicted the appellants of offences punishable under section 395 IPC and 342 IPC, and sentenced them to suffer RI for 5(five) years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with respect to the first mentioned offence, and to suffer RI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with respect to the other offence.
2 The learned Judge, however, held that the provisions of section 397 of the IPC were not attracted to the facts of the case, and that the offence punishable under the Arms Act was also not proved to have been committed. He therefore, passed an order of acquittal with respect to the said offence.
3 So far as the other accused were concerned, the learned Judge held that the case against them had not been proved, and acquitted them of all the offences.
4 The appellants being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them, have approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
5 Though the appeal was listed for final hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants did not remain present before the Court.
6 Under the circumstances, the appeal is being decided after perusing the appeal memo, the evidence adduced during trial, the impugned judgment and other relevant record of the case; and after hearing Smt.S.D. Shinde, the learned APP for the State.
7 The prosecution case, as put forth before the Trial Court may be stated as follows:-
The first informant Pramod Chiklikar (PW 1), on 24 February 2008, was staying in his farm-house along with his wife Smt. Vaishali (PW 6) and son. His driver Deepak (PW 7) and watchman Yadav were sleeping in the outer portion of the farmhouse.
8 At about 2.00 a.m, Pramod woke up from the sleep on hearing some persons talking. When he opened the window of the bedroom for asking Deepak as to who was there, he noticed that about 5 â 6 persons who had covered their faces by cloth, were standing there with weapons such as country-made pistol, iron rods, choppers, etc. Someone of them fired a bullet from the country-made revolver, which hit Pramod on the left side of his abdomen. Some of the said 56 persons were assaulting Deepak. The said persons were insisting that the door should be opened, or otherwise, the same would be broken open. They were demanding money and ornaments. Pramod, therefore, gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- and two gold bangles of his wife Vaishali to one of those persons from the window of the bedroom. In spite of that, they were shouting for opening the door, and threatening that otherwise it would be broken. Being frightened, Pramod opened the door. Persons with the aforesaid weapons, entered inside the house. They tied the limbs of Pramod, Vaishali, their son, put them in one room and bolted the room from outside. Thereafter, they took search of the house. After sometime, when their noise stopped, Pramod called the watchman by shouting, whereafter the watchman came inside and freed Pramod and Vaishali. Deepak had sustained injury. The brother of Pramod, one Rajesh was called telephonically, and after he came, first informant and Deepak were taken to hospital for treatment.
9 In the course of investigation, the appellants and other accused who were already in custody in some other case, were suspected to be involved in this case. Their custody in the present case was therefore, obtained. After completion of investigation, the appellants and the others were prosecuted, which resulted in the conviction of the appellants, as aforesaid.
10 It is an admitted position that no part of the robbed property was recovered from, or at the instance of any of the appellants. It is also an admitted position that no weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offences, was recovered from, or at the instance of any of the appellants. As a matter of fact, there was no such recovery of any part of the robbed property or an weapon from any of the accused in the said case.
11 It is also not in dispute that the appellants and the other accused were not known to the first informant and the other witnesses, since previously.
12 It is therefore, clear that the case against the appellants is based on their identification as two of the culprits made by Pramod (PW 1), Vaishali (PW 2) and Deepak (PW 7). Thus, whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is proper, legal and in accordance with law, would depend on the reliability and acceptability of the identification evidence.
13 In the course of investigation, Test Identification Parade was held on 4 June 2007. It was conducted by Parshuram Patil â Executive Magistrate (PW 10). In this identification parade, Pramod identified totally four accused, including the appellants, as the culprits. Similarly, Deepak (PW 7) also identified three accused including the appellants in the Test Identification Parade. Vaishali did not take part in the Test Identification Parade.
14 Though totally 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution during the trial, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of all the witnesses. It is because, except the witnesses relevant in the context of the identification of the appellants as two of the culprits, the others would only establish the happening of the incident of dacoity. It may be observed that, that the incident spoken about by Pramod, Vaishali and Deepak, indeed took place, and that a dacoity was committed by some persons at the given time and place, cannot be doubted at all. The evidence of the witnesses, in that regard, is fully satisfactory and has remained unchallenged.
15 The witnesses whose evidence is relevant in the context of the question that requires to be determined in this appeal, are Pramod (PW 1), Deepak (PW 7), Vaishali (PW 6), Parshuram Patil â Executive Magistrate (PW 10) and the Investigating Officers PSI Sanjay Jagtap (PW 11) and API Prakash Birajdar (PW 12).
16 In his evidence, Pramod has narrated as to how the incident took place, consistently with the prosecution case, and as aforesaid, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the happening of the incident which is spoken to about, also by Vaishali and Deepak. It is also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, and more particularly by Dr. Vijaysingh Dinesh Chavan (PW 8) who had treated Deepak, and Surya Gopal Raju (PW 9) who had performed surgery on Pramod, and removed the bullet that was stuck up in his body.
17 Pramod did speak about the Test Identification Parade held in prison. He claimed that in the said Test Identification Parade, he had identified the accused persons and that, he could identify them before the Court also. He said that all the five accused, including the appellants who were before the Court, were the same who had been identified by him in the Test Identification Parade.
18 In his evidence, he described the offenders as persons who had 'halfly' covered their head. It appears that mentioning 'half covering of the head' is intended to suggest that the features of the offenders could be observed 'partly.' However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that, before the police he had mentioned about the offenders having covered faces by cloth, and not that they were only 'halfly' covered.
19 Interestingly, Vaishali (PW 2) who had not taken part in the Test Identification Parade, was not asked any question about the identity of the appellants and other accused as the culprits, even during her examination-in-chief. Thus, in the Court also, she did not make any statement about the appellants and the other accused being the culprits.
20 Deepak identified the appellants and co-accused Balasaheb Bhosale as the culprits out of the five accused persons. He also stated that he had identified the appellants and the said co-accused Balasaheb Bhosale in the Test Identification Parade, that was held during the investigation.
21 The evidence of identification of the appellants as the culprits, is not at all satisfactory.
22 Pramod, in the examination-in-chief, apparently, was not asked as to whether the persons who had committed the dacoity were present in the Court, but this was brought in evidence in a little round about way. He was first made to speak about the Test Identification Parade, and then it was got from him that the persons identified by him during the Test Identification Parade, could be identified by him before the Court also, and that those persons had committed dacoity. He then said âall five accused present before the Court are sameâ.
23 Thus, he has not given any specific roles to any of the accused, including the appellants. Deepak, it may be recalled, had identified not all the accused before the Court, but only the appellants and the co-accused Balasaheb Bhosale. Vaishali was not even asked whether any of the dacoits were present in the Court.
24 It is well settled that the identification of persons â not previously known to the witnesses â for the first time in Court, is a weak piece of evidence. It is therefore, the Investigating Agency gets the identify of the suspects fixed in the course of investigation by holding Test Identification Parades. If the evidence of the identification of an accused as the culprit, is corroborated by the evidence of his previous identification by the witness in a Test Identification Parade, evidence of identification becomes more reliable and worthy of acceptance. Though there is no rule of law that the evidence of identification of persons not previously known, made in the Court for the first time, must be rejected in all cases, still, ordinarily, it would be hazardous to accept such evidence unless the same is corroborated by the evidence of identification of the culprits in a Test Identification Parade held previously. It is therefore that the evidence with respect to the identification held in a Test Identification Parade, and the holding of the Test Identification Parade, assumes some importance.
25 In order to ensure that the identification parades are held in a satisfactory manner, and in conformity with the judicial requirements, as apparent from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India, and various High Courts, the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department have issued guidelines prescribing procedure to be followed by the authorities holding the Test Identification Parades. In this case, the Parade has been held in violation of the guidelines. It is clear from the evidence of Parshuram Patil (PW 10) Executive Magistrate who held the Parade that he placed all five persons in one single Parade. There are several other infirmities in his evidence, and it is difficult to factually also believe the truth of what he stated, but I do not wish to discuss this aspect any further, inasmuch as the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has also doubted the evidence in respect of the holding of Test Identification Parade. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge clearly observed that proper procedure was not adopted for conducting the parade, and that the evidence of Parshuram Patil did not inspire confidence. He recorded his conclusion that the Test Identification Parade was not conducted properly and that the identification of the accused during the Test Identification Parade was also somewhat doubtful (paragraph no.27 of the impugned judgment).
26 Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge neither believed the evidence of identification of the accused persons as made by the witnesses before the court, as reliable, as is evident from the fact that though Pramod identified all the accused before the Court, he held only the present appellants guilty, nor did he believe the evidence to the effect that the appellants and the other accused had been identified by the witnesses in the Test Identification Parade. Even after holding that Pramod's identification of the accused persons as made in the Court was 'vague', he still convicted the appellants. It would be interesting to reproduce the reasoning of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge as reflected from the impugned judgment.
âPW 7 specifically identified before court three of the accused namely Balasaheb, Ramshettya and Kunil. Pramod Chikhalikar (PW 1) and Deepak Dhodi (PW 7) have also identified some of the accused before executive Magistrate during identification parade. Complainant identified Ramshettya, Kunil, Ganesh and Khogya whereas Deepak (PW 7) identified Ramshettya, Kunil and Balya. However, I have already pointed out that evidence regarding identification parade is not trustworthy. So on the point of identification of accused, if this entire material is considered, I found that atleast identification of accused Ramshettya and Kunil before court can be considered as duly established.â
It is not possible to accept this reasoning of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He had observed â rightly â that the evidence of Pramod regarding identification of all the accused persons as made in the Court, was 'vague'. Same applied to the evidence of Deepak (PW 7) also. As a matter of fact, it is not clear whether he had actually identified anybody in the Court. In the notes of evidence of Deepak, there is only an endorsement to the effect that â
âthe witness identified before Court accused Balasaheb Bhosale, Ramshetya and Kunilâ
27 When the identification before the Court was held to be 'vague' by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and when the evidence regarding the identification by these witnesses in a Test Identification Parade was rightly not accepted by him, there was no question of holding the appellants guilty solely on the basis of the identification evidence. Perhaps, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was carried away by the fact that Parshuram as well as Deepak both had identified the appellants, and the appellants being the only two common accused identified by these two witnesses, he accepted their evidence as sufficient to establish the identity of the appellants.
28 It would be proper to quote from the reported judgment of Supreme Court of India in HarinathVs. State of U.P. 1988, SCC (Cri) 14, so as to emphasize the unreliability of identification evidence.
âThe one area of criminal evidence susceptible of miscarriage of criminal justice is the error in the identification of the criminal. Indeed Prof.Borchard's 'Convicting the Innocent' records several criminal convictions in which the accused was subsequently proved innocent. The major source of the error is to be found in the identification of the accused by the victim of the crime. Indeed the learned author refers to the source of mistaken identification thus:
The emotional balance of the victim or eye-witness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy. Into the identification enter other motives not necessarily stimulated originally by the accused personally â the desire to requite a crime, to exact vengeance upon the person believed guilty, to find a scapegoat, to support consciously or unconsciously, an identification, already made by another. Thus, doubts are resolved against the accused (Para17)â
29 Apart from the normal hazards in basing a conviction solely on the identification evidence, in this case, it was certainly much more hazardous to accept the testimony of Pramod and Deepak to hold the appellants guilty. It is because there were a number of other weaknesses in the prosecution case. It may be recalled that neither any weapons, nor any part of the robbed property was recovered at the instance of the appellants, or any of them. One of the eye witnesses â Vaishali â was not even asked to identify any of the culprits either in the Court or the Test Identification Parade held previously.
30 What is more significant that the prosecution case itself is that the culprits had covered their facts, and though this position was sought to be overcome by Pramod while giving evidence in Court by saying that their faces 'halfly ' covered, the omission in that regard has been duly established. This completely destroyed the reliability of the identification evidence, which, as discussed above, is, even otherwise ordinarily considered as of a weak type, unless corroborated by satisfactory evidence of identification in a Test Identification Parade held previously.
31 In my opinion, the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants. The order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law. The same is, therefore, required to be interfered with.
32 The appeal is allowed.
33 The Judgment of conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palghar, and the sentences imposed upon them, are set aside.
34 The appellants are acquitted. They be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in some other case.
35 Fine if paid, be refunded to them respectively.