Jhablu Singh @ Ramesh Singh v. ….. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 17 of 2011 ------- Jhablu Singh @ Ramesh Singh Versus ….. ….Petitioner The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party …….. CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State ------- :Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. :Mr. B. Shastri, APP ……… Heard learned counsel for the parties. 07/12.01.2023 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2010 passed by learned sessions Judge, Gumla in criminal appeal No. 48/2010 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2010 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Gumla corresponding to G.R. No.742/2002, T.R. No. 4/2010, wherein the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for Six months, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The brief fact of the case as per the fardbyan it appears that on 11.12.2002 the informant was sleeping in his house and at about 10.30 pm he heard noise that someone in breaking door of his elder brother Ramdhani Prasad. As informant came out, two miscreants caught hold him and attacked with bhujali and told that they were partymen. The informant became injured after that they forcibly opened the door of his elder brother. Thereafter three miscreants entered in the house with pistol and bhujali and they looted ornaments and cash of Rs.25000/. Then the miscreants took informant’s bhabhi and nephew along with them to the house of Anand Prasad and got his door opened with help of Lilawati Devi and entered the house of Anand Prasad and also looted his some ornament and cash. On hearing hulla, one Laxman prasad arrived there but he was also assaulted by the miscreants but somehow he raised halla Chor Chor. 2 Thereafter miscreants also entered into the house of Laxman Prasad and looted away jewelleries and cash amount and thereafter miscreants fled away. 4. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as no T.I. parade was conducted and the petitioner was identified for the first time in the Court and that identification in court for the first time cannot be the sole basis of conviction. He further draws attention of this Court towards the statement of witnesses especially P.Ws.5, 6 and 7, who stated that police had taken the petitioner to their house, hence they identified the petitioner but the learned courts below overlooked the evidence of P.W.5, 6 and 7. Hence, the impugned judgment requires interference and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. 5. Learned APP opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no interference is required as there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR ; it transpires from the record that the prosecution witnesses P.W 5, P.W6 and P.W7 have accepted that the police produced the petitioner before them after occurrence as such their testimony cannot be relied. It further transpires that no T.I. parade was conducted by the prosecution for the reason best known to them and the petitioner was identified for the first time in the court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402 has categorically held that it is not prudent to convict an accused solely on basis of identification for the first time in court without test identification parade. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below; "18. From the aforesaid it can be seen that as such there are some contradictions in the first statement of the complainant recorded in the form of FIR and in the deposition before the Court. In the deposition before the Court, he has tried to improve the case by 3 deposing that he had seen the accused in the city on one or two occasions. The aforesaid was not disclosed in the FIR. Even in the cross-examination as admitted by PW 1 he did not disclose any description of the accused. At this stage it is to be noted that PW 1 has specifically and categorically admitted is incorrect that the accused were known earlier. He disclosed only the age of the accused. In that view of the matter conducting of TIP was necessitated and, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on their identification by PW 1 for the first time in the Court." in the cross-examination that it Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Singh v. Republic of India, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 490 has held that identification of accused person by a witness in the dock for the first time though permissible but cannot be given credence without further corroborative evidence. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below; "50. It is clear that identification of accused persons by a witness in the dock for the first time though permissible but cannot be given credence without further corroborative evidence. Though some of the witnesses identified some of the accused in the dock as mentioned above without corroborative evidence the dock identification alone cannot be treated as substantial evidence, though it is permissible." 7. In the case at hand the learned lower courts failed to consider that the petitioner was identified for the first time in the court and though dock identification is permissible it is not a substantial evidence unless corroborated and the prosecution failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence and as such identification in court for the first time cannot be the sole basis of conviction. It is an admitted fact that the police has shown the petitioner to the prosecution witnesses Nos.5, 6 & 7 and that the learned courts below should have inferred that without holding T.I parade taking petitioner to the house of the prosecution witnesses, identification of the petitioner by witnesses should have been rendered unreliable. 8. In the light of the above factual position, I find it very difficult to rely on the prosecution case. The learned courts below did not consider the case of the prosecution on proper appreciation of the evidence, facts and the law as laid 4 down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. I hold that the prosecution case is not at all free from reasonable doubt. The order of conviction which has been impugned in this revision petition is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner should be given benefit of doubt. 9. Consequently, the judgment dated 20.09.2010 passed by sessions Judge, Gumla in criminal appeal No. 48/2010 and judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Gumla corresponding to G.R. No.742/2002, T.R. No. 4/2010 are hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision
Decision
application, is hereby, allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-