| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/917356 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Gujarat High Court |
| Decided On | May-07-2011 |
| Case Number | Case No. 108 of 2003 |
| Judge | Akil Kureshi |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 397, 398; Arms Act - Section 25(1)C; Evidence Act 1872 - Section 9; |
| Appellant | Anilkumar Chhaganlal Mehtra |
| Respondent | State of Gujarat and anr. |
| Cases Referred | (See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain |
2. As per charge Exh.3, it was alleged against the accused that he along with other co-accused on 10.11.2000 at 21.30 hours assaulted the complainant when he was traveling on his motorcycle, threatened him with gun and knife and robbed him of cash of Rs. 2,000/- and other valuables such as gold rings and wrist watch. Thereafter, they also committed robbery near Anior Kampa by robbing witnesses of their wrist watch, cash etc. He was thus charged for offence punishable under Sections 397, 398 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
3. Complainant, Bipinkumar Manubhai, PW-4 was examined at Exh.20. He stated that in the night of 10th November, 2000 at about 9.15, he was at his father-in-law's house. For some work, he had to go towards Hamirpur on his scooter. On the way, there was one Hero Honda motorcycle without number plate parked on the road. When he stopped the scooter, one person flashed the country made revolver and held it against his forehead, another person caught him and dragged him to the road side flashing a knife. They took away his rings, wrist watch and cash of Rs. 2,000/-, which he was carrying. He therefore filed complaint before the Police which was produced before the Court at Exh.19.
4. One Jayantibhai Ramjibhai, PW-5, Exh.21 stated that on 10.11.2000, the incident had taken place at about 10 O'Clcok at night in the sim of village Anior Kampa. He along with his friend, Prabhudas Patel, were going towards Anior Kampa on their motorcycle. On the way, motorcycle was stopped by three people on the road. They were taken on the road side ditch at a gun point. They were asked to raise their hands. His wrist watch was taken away. From Prabhudas cash was extorted. They were beaten up with kicks and fist blows. They had put up resistance upon which revolver was fired on him causing palate injuries on his face. During the scuffle, he had bitten lip of one of the persons and part of the lip had got severed and had fallen on the ground. He identified the accused before the Court as the person whose lip he had bitten of. Sometime, thereafter, a jeep had arrived in which he and his companion Prabhudas were taken to Modasa at a private hospital for treatment. He was called for identification of the accused in the Mamlatdar's Office. He had identified him during the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) also.
4.1 In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the T.I.P. no other person had cut on the lips. He admitted that there was no light at the scene of the incident.
5. Prabhudas Patel, PW-8, Ex.25, in his deposition, stated that on 10.11.2000, he and Jayantibhai were traveling on their motorcycle. When they reached the sim of Anior Kampa, they were forced to stop their motorcycle, One person came with a country made revolver and the other was carrying a knife. They were robbed of their valuables at gun and Knife point. They were beaten up with kick and fist blows. They had a scuffle with the accused during which the witness suffered fracture on his right wrist. Jaynitbhai, was fired from the revolver. Jayntibhai had bitten one of the accused on the lip and cut his lip. He and Jayantibhai were taken to Modasa Hospital for treatment. Some four months before the date of deposition, he was called for Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.), during which, he had identified the accused. He stated that through the flash light of the motorcycle, he had seen the accused. He could identify the present appellant because his lip was cut.
5.1 In the cross-examination, he stated that this was the third time he came to the Court for giving his evidence. On one previous occasion, the accused was present but the case was adjourned since his advocate was not present. No other dummy during the T.I.P. had cut on his lip like that of the accused. He admitted that there was no light when the incident had taken place, but stated that there was light of the motorcycle.
6. One Dr. Subhash Patel, PW-9 was examined at Exh.27. He was at the relevant time, Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Dakor. He stated that on 10.11.2000 with the history of injury through accident one Anilbhai Chhaganbhai Rajput had come to the hospital without police yadi late at night at 2.30 (i.e. in the early hours of 11.11.2000). The patient had stated that he got injured in a vehicular accident near Lasundara village. The patient had, however, declined to file police case. He found that upper lip had got crushed requiring plastic surgery. He had, therefore, referred the patient to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad with a note. He produced the case papers of the patient at Exh.28. He also produced the copy of the reference note at Exh.29. Witness stated that the injuries on the patient did not match the history he had given. Such injury was possible by biting. In a vehicular accident, if the patient had received such an injury on the lip, he could not have escaped without several injuries on the face.
6.1 In the cross-examination, he stated that though he had obtained signature on the writing that no police case is to be filed, he could not state as to who had put the signature.
7. Dr.Niranjan Natvarlal, PW-12, Exh.38, had treated injured witness Prabhudas and Jayantibhai. He had found multiple injuries on their body corresponding to the injuries described by the witnesses in their deposition.
8. Govindbhai Desai, PW-13, Exh.41 was the PSI at Modasa Town Police Station. In his deposition, though he stated that the accused had led the police party to scene of the incident and the panchnama was drawn by him, no such panchnama was produced on record neither panch-witnesses to this panchnama were examined.
9. Executive Magistrate, Vajabhai Dama, PW-2 was examined at Exh.15. On 5.4.2003, he had carried out the T.I.P. of the accused by witness Jayantibhai and Prabhudas. He stated that both the witnesses had sucessfully identified the accused from amongst several persons made to stand in a line.
9.1 In the cross-examination, he admitted that none of the dummies had injury on the lips. He stated that the accused was in the police custody before T.I.P.
10. Principally, on the above evidence, the prosecution sought to establish the charges against the appellant.
11. Essentially, the evidence against the accused is in the form of eye-witnesses accounts of Jayantibhai, PW-5, Prabhudas, PW-8, their identification of the accused during the T.I.P. as well as before the Court and the evidence of Dr.Subhash Patel, PW-9, Exh.27.
12. Before assessing the above evidence, it can be noted that there is hardly any doubt about the two successive incidents of robbery at the hands of some group of persons committed in the night of 10th October, 2000. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the versions of independent eye-witnesses beginning with the complainant, PW-4, Bipinkumar, Jayantilal, PW-5, Prabhudas, PW-8 in this regard. Complainant, Bipinkumar was robbed of cash and other valuables when he was traveling on his scooter at about 9.15 on the 10th October, 2000 going towards Malpur Village. Shortly, thereafter, at about 11 O'Clock when Jayantibhai PW-5, and Prabhudas PW-8, were traveling on their motorcycle, they were intercepted by three people carrying country made revolver and knife. They were also robbed of their cash and valuables. They were also beaten up by the assailant. Crucial question, however, is whether there is enough evidence to hold that accused was one of the members of the said group.
13. It may be noted that at the instance of the present accused, no discovery of the weapons or any of the mudamal articles have been made. Though the police witness, Govindbhai, PW-13, Exh.41 stated that the accused had shown place of the incident and a panchnama of this fact was also drawn, as already noted neither such a panchnama was produced on record nor any of the panch-witnesses examined.
14. Essentially, involvement of the accused, therefore, shall have to be judged on the basis of T.I.P. during which the witnesses are stated to have identified him before the Executive Magistrate, and the identification before the Court and the evidence of Dr.Subhash Patel, PW-9, who had treated the accused for lip injury late at night on 10.11.2000 at Community Health Centre, Dakor. In the case of Md.Kalam alias Abdul Kalam v. State of Rajasthan 2008 AIR SCW 2501, the Apex Court considering the requirement of holding T.I.P. during the investigation made following observations:
7. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of U.P. identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. (See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain . The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
8. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.
15. In so far as the T.I.P. is concerned, admittedly, the same was held on 5.4.2003. Incident took place on 10.11.2000. Some 2 1/2 years passed between the date of the incident and date on which the accused was offered for identification before the Executive Magistrate. The witnesses also admitted that the incident took place when there was no light. Further, the witnesses agreed that during the identification parade, no other person had injury on his lips. In fact Prabhudasbhai, PW-8, stated that since Jayantibhai, PW-5 had bitten up the lip of the accused, it was possible for him to identify the person. Though, Prabhudasbhai PW-8, stated that he had seen the accused with the help of the light of the motorcycle, he had further stated in his deposition that the assailants had stopped the motorcycle and made them to switch off the vehicle and taken away the key. It would thus appear that even if, the witness had time to see the faces of the accused with the aid of the light of the motorcycle, the same would be only for a very brief while.
15.1 Considering all these aspects of the matter, particularly, a long passage of time between the incident and the date of holding of TIP, the fact that accused was the only person having pronounced lip injury, the fact that the witnesses were aware about the injury of the accused on his lip, I am of the opinion that the value of the T.I.P. gets virtually destroyed.
16. It is true that the witnesses identified the accused before the Court. Prosecution has also heavily relied on the evidence of Dr.Subhas Patel who had treated the accused for a lip injury late at night on 10.11.2000. Dr. Subhash Patel also stated that the patient had given false history of having been injured through the vehicular accident and such injury could not have been caused in an accident.
17. In absence of any other evidence, however, I find that it is not possible to link the accused with the commission of the offence only on the above two factors. Firstly, the identification of the accused before the Court took place more than 2 1/2 years after the date of the incident. His identification during T.I.P. by the witnesses does not inspire confidence for the reasons already noted. There was admittedly no light when the incident took place. Only light was that of the motorcycle on which Jayantibhai and his complainant were traveling. As per their own count, however, robbers asked them to stop the motorcycle and switch of the engine. They, therefore, had a few moments to see faces of the assailants. Their identification before the Court 21/2 years later, therefore, required strong corroboration. The only corroboration that has come on record is in the form of the deposition of Dr.Subhash Patel. Dr. Subhash Patel does not throw any light directly on the incident. Obviously, he has no knowledge of involvement or otherwise of the accused in the commission of the offence. He only stated that he had treated the accused for a lip injury which could not have been caused in a vehicular accident contrary to what was stated by the patient.
18. It may, however, be noted that the alleged incident took place in Modasa Taluka of Sabarkantha District Dr. Subhash Patel treated the accused at Dakor, Community Health Centre which is situated in Kheda district. One may take judicial notice of the fact that there is substantial distance between the two places. By a mere co incidence, if the accused required treatment for his lip injury that by itself would not corroborate his identification by the accused before the Court and only on this ground, identification which is by itself a weak piece of evidence cannot; on several factors discussed above; from basis of conviction. Interestingly, the statement of the Doctor was not recorded by the Police during investigation, nor was he cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. He was examined before the Court without any explanation as to why his statement was previously not recorded or what led the investigating agency to this witness.
19. However the strong suspicion against the accused; the same cannot take the form of conviction. Additionally, as already noted, weapons or muddamal articles have not be recovered from this accused. Though he is stated to have taken the police to the scene of the offence, no panchnama thereof produced, nor any panch witness examined in this regard.
20. To recapitulate, on record that is no evidence of recovery or discovery either mudamal or the weapons at the instance from the present appellant. Though, it is stated that the accused had led the police party and the panchas to scene of the incident, nothing in this regard was produced on record. Dr. Subhash Patel's evidence does not further the case of prosecution. Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) In the present case had little value. Identification of the accused before the Court, for reasons recorded earlier, after 2 1/2 years cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
21. In the result, I find that the learned Judge committed an error in convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 397, 398 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. His conviction and sentence, therefore, are set aside. Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine if paid be refunded. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.