IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1663 OF 2012

IQBAL AND ANOTHER …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment dated

14.05.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing

Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1981, confirming the conviction of the appellants

under Section 396 IPC and also the sentence of ten years rigorous

imprisonment imposed on each of them.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night i.e.

on 21/22.09.1979, the complainant-Patia Singh (PW1) was sleeping in his

house. His brothers Saran Singh, Sukhbeer Singh and his children were

sleeping in their house. Both the houses were adjacent to each other. In

the midnight at about 1.00 o’clock, PW1-Patia Singh heard the noise of

gun firing and in the light of torch, he saw that in the house of his

brother Saran Singh, about 14-15 dacoits were looting the property and that

two of them on the roofs and two dacoits were standing on the gate holding

guns and they were continuously firing. All the inmates of the house

witnessed the incident in the torch light and electric light emanating from

tube well. On raising alarm, the villagers came out to help them and they

were carrying torches and they warned the dacoits from behind the walls.

When Saran Singh tried to control the dacoits, the dacoits opened fire and

he was shot dead. The miscreants looted the articles in about one and half

hours and fled away from the scene.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant–Patia Singh

(PW1), a case was registered under Section 396 IPC in FIR No.258/1979 in

P.S. Parikshitgarh, Meerut on 22.09.1979. PW8-Nepal Singh (SI) had taken

up the investigation and he investigated the spot and collected the list of

looted articles from Jay Singh and Sukhbeer Singh. Harpal Singh-PW4(SI)

conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased Saran Singh. Autopsy on

the dead body was performed on 23.09.1979 by Dr. S.P. Goel and he opined

that the death was due to gunshot injuries. PW8-Nepal Singh recorded the

statement of the witnesses and seized the torches, lanterns and prepared

the site map and recovery memo. The accused were arrested on the night of

8/9.10.1979 and the test identification parade was conducted in District

Jail, Meerut on 15.11.1979 by PW6-Seeta Ram (Special Executive Magistrate).

PW7-Bhanu Pratap (SI) had taken up further investigation and received the

report of test identification parade. On the basis of investigation

conducted by PW7 and his predecessor investigating officers, chargesheet

was filed against the accused-appellants, namely, Iqbal and Khurshed and

against non-appealing accused, namely, Kripa s/o Buddhu and Kishnu s/o Ram

Chander under Section 396 IPC.

4. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined

as many as ten witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects. Upon

appreciation of evidence, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut held that

the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and vide judgment

dated 23.12.1980, convicted the accused-appellants and the non-appealing

accused under Section 396 IPC and sentenced them to undergo ten years

rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, the

appellants namely, Iqbal, Kishnu and Khurshed, preferred Criminal Appeal

No.2 of 1981 and Kripa filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1981 in the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad. After three decades of delay, the High Court

vide judgment dated 14.05.2012, dismissed both the criminal appeals and

thereby confirmed the conviction and also the sentence of imprisonment

imposed on them. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the

appellants herein, namely, Iqbal and Khurshed, have preferred this appeal

assailing the correctness of the verdict of conviction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that at the time

of incident, it was pitch dark and it would have been highly improbable for

the witnesses to identify the dacoits with flash of torches. It was

further submitted that PW1-Patia Singh had given an exhaustive list of more

than fifty valuable items which had been stolen, but except three kilograms

of ghee in a clay pot, nothing was recovered from the appellants and in the

absence of substantive evidence corroborating the identification, the

courts below ought not to have convicted the appellants. It was also

submitted that the appellants have no criminal antecedents to commit such

heinous crime.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent– State of Uttar

Pradesh contended that the testimony of PW1-Patia Singh, PW2-Jay Singh and

PW3-Begraj who are the eye witnesses and their presence on the spot is

quite natural and they being the eye witnesses to the incident had seen the

dacoits for a considerable time and, therefore, identification of the

appellants being the dacoits cannot be doubted. It was further argued that

based on the testimony of PW1 to PW3 and other materials on record, courts

below by concurrent findings convicted the appellants under Section 396 IPC

and such concurrent findings cannot be interfered with.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused

the impugned judgment and evidence on record.

8. PW1-Patia Singh, who is the complainant, has narrated the

incident stating that about 1.00 o’clock in the night of 21/22.09.1979

about 14-15 dacoits came and looted the house of his brother Saran Singh.

On hearing alarm, villagers, namely, Ganga Saran, Daya Chand and Devi Singh

who were having torches came and took shelter in PW1’s house and with the

torch light, he was able to see the dacoits. PW1 further stated that after

the commission of the dacoity when he entered into his brother’s house he

saw his brother-Saran Singh being shot dead. He has stated that there is a

road of three and a half yards width between his house and his brothers’

houses and that other villagers witnessed the incident from the shelter of

his house in the sitting room.

9. PW2-Jay Singh, son of the deceased Saran Singh, has stated that

on that fateful night he was sleeping in the verandah of his house, which

is adjacent to PW1’s house, with his father Saran Singh, Haran Singh and

other inmates of the house. PW2 further deposed that at about 1.00 o’clock

in the night about 14-15 dacoits came with the torches and looted the

house and also started firing. In order to save his life, he came out

running from the house and took shelter in the sitting room of PW1-Patia

Singh (PW1) and PW2-Jay Singh further stated that from the house of PW1, he

saw the faces of dacoits in the flash light of torches. He further stated

that after the incident, he went back to his house and found that his

father Saran Singh being shot dead. PW3-Begraj also deposed on the same

lines that on the critical night of the incident, he heard sound of fire

arms and he went to Albel’s house which is at a distance of five-six yards

from the house of the deceased. He further stated that he saw the faces of

the dacoits in the torch light flashed by the villagers.

10. In cases of dacoity, usually, the offence is committed by unknown

persons with the criminal background. It is only in very few cases, the

accused-dacoits are known to the victim. PW1-Patia Singh and PW2-Jay Singh

have stated that they had witnessed the incident from a distance of three

and half yards. PW3-Begraj also stated that he had witnessed the incident

from a distance of five-six yards in the feeble torch light. Admittedly,

according to the witnesses, there was no electricity at the time of

incident in their houses. They claimed that they could see the accused

persons with the help of their torch lights. In the courts below, onbehalf

of the accused persons, it was argued that the night of incident was an

amavasya-new moon night. A perusal of calendar of that month in that

year, it is seen that the intervening night of 21/22.09.1979 was a new moon

night i.e. ‘amavasya’.

11. In our considered view, it is unbelievable that on a new moon night

when it was pitch dark, the witnesses who were frightened and who were

hiding themselves behind the walls in order to save themselves, could have

seen actual faces of the accused persons just by flash of torch lights on

their faces and in the light of lantern. Further, there were about 14-15

dacoits in number, all armed with deadly weapons and were continuously

making ingress and egress in the house of the deceased, it becomes

inconceivable as to how the witnesses standing at a distance in a feeble

light would have been able to identify the dacoits.

12. When the witnesses in a panicky state and standing at a distance of

three and half yards and five-six yards, it is doubtful whether the

witnesses would have gained enduring impression of the identity of the

accused. In the commission of offence of dacoity, identification becomes

susceptible to errors and miscarriage of justice. In Hari Nath and Anr.

vs. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14, this Court held as under:-

“16….The conduct of an identification parade belongs to the realm, and is

part of the investigation. [pic]The evidence of test identification is

admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. But the value of the test

identification, apart altogether from the other safeguards appropriate to a

fair test of identification, depends on the promptitude in point of time

with which the suspected persons are put up for test identification. If

there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused

persons for a test identification, the delay by itself, detracts from the

credibility of the test.

17. The 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 eyewitness 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 — 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.”

18. Glanville Williams in The Proof of Guilt — (Hamlyn Lectures) — refers

to the errors of recognition breeding an invincible assurance in the

witnesses, highly deceptive for those who are not forewarned of such

possibilities, and excerpts Gorphe’s results of a continental

investigation, thus:

“There is no difference from the subjective point of view, between true and

false recognition, so far as their intrinsic qualities are concerned, and

there are no objective signs to distinguish one from the other. .... The

witness’s certainty may not be immediate, without this delay being

necessarily a sign of error. Nevertheless, error is more frequent when

recognition comes some time after seeing... The act of recognition is very open to suggestion in all its forms.... Resemblance is a matter of relativity. For a white person, all negroes are

like each other, and conversely. A person can [pic]much better distinguish

those of his own age and condition than those of different ages and

condition. Uniform is a cause of fallacious resemblance, above all for

those who do not wear it. (emphasis supplied)”

19. The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the

oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence

as to identify…”

13. As noticed earlier, test identification parade was conducted in jail

on 15.11.1979 by PW6-Special Executive Magistrate in which the witnesses

PW1, PW2 and PW3 identified the accused. As far as test identification

parade is concerned, it is relevant to note that accused-Kripa has

contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case because of the

rivalry with Rampal Singh and his maternal uncle Mangeram. Accused-Kripa

also pleaded that the witnesses knew them as they were living in nearby

villages and because of rivalry, they were being falsely implicated in the

case. So far as appellant No.2–Khurshed and another co-accused-Kishnu are

concerned, they had stated that they were arrested by the police from their

houses and they were shown to the witnesses at the police station and they

were also photographed before holding test identification parade.

14. Even though the complainant-PW1 and other witnesses have denied the

defence plea, in the light of the fact that the incident occurred in the

pitch of darkness, the identification of the appellants by the witnesses

has to be viewed with caution and the court is to look for corroboration

strengthening the identification.

15. Evidence of identification of the miscreants in the test

identification parade is not a substantive evidence. Conviction cannot be

based solely on the identity of the dacoits by the witnesses in the test

identification parade. The prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence

by establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the

crime, like recovery of articles which are the subject matter of dacoity

and the alleged weapons used in the commission of the offence.

16. It is pertinent to note that in the present case no recovery of

articles which are the subject of dacoity was made from the appellants or

other non-appealing accused persons. In his complaint, PW1 gave a list

enumerating fifty expensive items, such as gold jewellery, silver articles,

sarees and clothes and also cash. As per the recovery memo, what was

recovered was just three kilograms of ghee in a clay pot. In his

deposition, PW8-Nepal Singh (investigating officer) has stated that at the

instance of Kripa, he had recovered a ‘chaptaghu’ and an ‘attire’.

However, in the recovery memo, only three kilogram of ghee is mentioned

which is said to have been recovered on the disclosure statement of accused

Kripa. From the appellants as well as from the non -appealing accused

persons, not a single item of valuable out of the whole list of stolen

articles was recovered. It is quite unbelievable that within a short span

of time i.e. from 21.09.1979 (date of incident) to 9.10.1979 (date of

arrest), the accused would have converted or sold out all the valuable

items. Even if we accept that they had done so, the prosecution ought to

have adduced evidence as to how and in what manner the articles which were

the subject matter of dacoity were either disposed of or converted. Murder

and robbery were part of the same transaction. Consequent upon the

disclosure statement, only three kilograms of ghee was recovered.

17. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, it is the

duty of the prosecution to prove that the stolen property was in the

possession of the accused persons or that the accused had knowledge that

the property was a stolen property or the accused persons had converted the

stolen property. No such recovery was made to connect the appellants and

other non-appealing accused persons with the crime.

18. In the trial court, on behalf of some of the accused persons, a plea

was taken that some of the accused were known to the witnesses and that the

accused are resident of Jayee village and Buksar village and are doing

cultivation and that the accused are known to the witnesses. The

prosecution witnesses having known to the accused earlier, the witnesses

are residents of village Etmadpur and used to take the bus at village Jayee

and at village Khajoori bus stand. The courts below observed that the

identification of the appellants cannot be discarded merely on the ground

that the appellants and accused Kishnu reside in the village Buksar and

that the witnesses knew the accused long before. The accused could not

adduce evidence to substantiate the defence plea that the prosecution

witnesses had known the accused earlier. Non-adducing of evidence to

substantiate the defence plea by the accused seems to have substantially

weighed in the mind of the trial court to accept the prosecution case.

19. Courts below based the verdict of conviction solely on the oral

testimony of PW1 to PW3 and the identification of the appellants and other

non-appealing accused in the test identification parade. As discussed

earlier, in the absence of any other evidence like recovery of stolen

jewellery or other articles strengthening the prosecution case, conviction

cannot be based solely on the identification of the accused in the test

identification parade. Serious doubts arise as regards identification of

the accused regarding complicity of the appellants in the commission of

dacoity and their identification by the witnesses and the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in our

view, the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 IPC cannot be

sustained and is liable to be set aside.

20. Conviction of the appellants under Section 396 IPC and the sentence

imposed on them is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellants

are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in any

other case.

………………………J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

……………………...J.

(R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi;

May 6, 2015

-----------------------