Veerpal Vs. State of Haryana

Veerpal vs State of Haryana

Disposition Appeal Allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Oct 16, 1986

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/649739

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/649739
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: K.N. Singh and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 16, 1986
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1984
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ K.N. Singh and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.] -- Criminal Trial — T.I. parade — Charge of committing dacoity along with others at night — Appellant-accused identified for the first time in court in T.I. parade taking place seven years after the occurrence — Held, evidence of identification doubtful...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Veerpal

Respondent

State of Haryana

Legal References

Reported In: 1986Supp(1)SCC733

Excerpt

- [ k.n. singh and; m.p. thakkar, jj.] -- criminal trial - t.i. parade - charge of committing dacoity along with others at night - appellant-accused identified for the first time in court in t.i. parade taking place seven years after the occurrence - held, evidence of identification doubtful - evidence act, 1872, section 9 -- the trial court and the high court have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt on the basis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses who have identified the appellant as one of the dacoits. the evidence of identification of the appellant does not inspire requisite confidence. the appellant is on bail......of time. the accused along with the appellant were tried some seven years after the occurrence. the appellant was for the first time identified as one of the dacoits at the trial when he was in the dock in the courtroom some seven years after the occurrence. we have taken into account the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and the high court. we have also scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses on our own. having given our anxious consideration to the entire evidence and the facts and circumstances of this case we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as regards the participation of the appellant. the evidence of identification of the appellant does not inspire requisite confidence. our attention has also been called to the fact that some three months after the occurrence the appellant had made a disclosure statement on march 17, 1975 and that a gun, four cartridges and silver glass were recovered from under a tree in pursuance to the disclosure statement. we have taken into consideration the evidence on this point as also all the relevant circumstances but we are not satisfied that the evidence regarding the aforesaid recovery can be acted upon with safety. we are not satisfied that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. the appellant is on bail. he need not therefore surrender. his bail bonds will stand discharged. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

K.N. Singh and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.

1. On December 14, 1974, three dacoities took place in a village. It was the prosecution case that thirteen dacoits had come late in night and had committed dacoity at three houses. The appellant was charged with the offence of having committed dacoity on the aforesaid night along with others. The trial court and the High Court have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt on the basis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses who have identified the appellant as one of the dacoits.

2. It is not in dispute that no identification parade was held at any point of time. The accused along with the appellant were tried some seven years after the occurrence. The appellant was for the first time identified as one of the dacoits at the trial when he was in the dock in the courtroom some seven years after the occurrence. We have taken into account the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and the High Court. We have also scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses on our own. Having given our anxious consideration to the entire evidence and the facts and circumstances of this case we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as regards the participation of the appellant. The evidence of identification of the appellant does not inspire requisite confidence. Our attention has also been called to the fact that some three months after the occurrence the appellant had made a disclosure statement on March 17, 1975 and that a gun, four cartridges and silver glass were recovered from under a tree in pursuance to the disclosure statement. We have taken into consideration the evidence on this point as also all the relevant circumstances but we are not satisfied that the evidence regarding the aforesaid recovery can be acted upon with safety. We are not satisfied that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The appellant is on bail. He need not therefore surrender. His bail bonds will stand discharged. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1986 Same Parties Veerpal vs State of Haryana Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.N. Singh and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.

Criminal