2003 (12) TMI 624 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the challenge made to convic-tion under Section 397 even after excluding the applicability of Section 34 IPC does not merit countenance, for the reason that each one of the accused in this case were said to have been wielding a deadly weapon of their own, and thereby squarely fulfilled the ingredients of Section 397 IPC, de hors any reference to Section 34 IPC?

Summary

Issues:
- Identification of accused without test identification parade
- Applicability of Section 397 IPC and proof of necessary ingredients
- Vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC
- Challenge to the findings on other charges

Identification of Accused without Test Identification Parade:
The case involved the accused entering a house, threatening the occupants with weapons, and committing robbery. The defense argued that the identification of the accused without a test identification parade rendered the evidence unreliable. However, the Supreme Court held that the omission to conduct a test identification parade did not affect the credibility of the witnesses' identification. The Court emphasized that the facts and circumstances of each case determine the necessity of a test identification parade. In this case, the known identity of one accused, the involvement of investigating authorities, and the complainant's association in identifying the accused justified the reliance on witness testimony without a formal parade.

Applicability of Section 397 IPC and Proof of Necessary Ingredients:
The defense contested the applicability of Section 397 IPC, claiming a lack of proof of essential elements. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the narrow interpretation presented by the appellants was misconceived. The Court referred to previous judgments to explain that the use of a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC does not require actual physical harm but includes creating fear and intimidation. The Court clarified that the presence of deadly weapons, such as knives, fulfilled the requirements of Section 397 IPC, regardless of individual possession. The Court emphasized that Section 397 IPC complements existing provisions on dacoity and does not rely on vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC.

Vicarious Liability under Section 34 IPC:
The defense raised concerns about vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC regarding the possession of weapons by the accused. The Court dismissed this argument, highlighting that each accused was armed and used a deadly weapon, satisfying the criteria of Section 397 IPC individually. The Court differentiated between individual acts and constructive liability, asserting that the collective possession of weapons by the accused justified the application of Section 397 IPC without invoking Section 34 IPC.

Challenge to Findings on Other Charges:
The defense attempted to challenge the findings on other charges, but the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court affirmed that the conclusions were well-founded, supported by substantial evidence, and devoid of any legal flaws. Consequently, the convictions under Section 397 IPC were maintained, and the appeals were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the accused under Section 397 IPC, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence, the interpretation of legal provisions, and the absence of procedural irregularities in the identification process.