1988 (10) TMI 283 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC.
2. Absence of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence.
3. Validity of recoveries and seizures of incriminating articles.
4. Identification of the accused and seized articles.
5. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 100(4), Cr.P.C.
6. Test identification parade and its reliability.
7. Motive and enmity as evidence.
8. Examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
9. Admissibility and reliability of statements under Section 27, Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 201, IPC for the murder of Rameshwar and Gabbar. The trial court imposed a death sentence under Section 302 and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201.

2. Absence of Direct Evidence and Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence:
The prosecution faced a dilemma due to the absence of direct evidence. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of articles and the identification of the deceased bodies.

3. Validity of Recoveries and Seizures of Incriminating Articles:
The evidence of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) contradicted the deposition of P.W. 5, who initially reported the discovery of the bodies. The I.O. denied seizing any articles from the place where the bodies were found, claiming they were recovered from different locations. The court found the seizures doubtful due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses.

4. Identification of the Accused and Seized Articles:
The identification of the articles, such as the towel, was delayed by 18 days, which tainted the evidence. Witnesses failed to provide reasons for identifying the articles, and the identification process lacked proper documentation of the distinguishing features of the seized items.

5. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under Section 100(4), Cr.P.C.:
The court noted a breach of Section 100(4), Cr.P.C., which mandates the presence of "two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality" during searches. The prosecution failed to provide an explanation for non-compliance, rendering the seizures invalid.

6. Test Identification Parade and Its Reliability:
The test identification parade for appellant Mansaram was conducted 27 days after his arrest, making it unreliable. Witnesses admitted to seeing the accused before the parade, further tainting the identification process.

7. Motive and Enmity as Evidence:
The court found the evidence of motive, such as past enmity and disputes, insufficient to implicate the accused. The alleged motive was deemed a double-edged sword, potentially serving as a basis for false implication.

8. Examination of Accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.:
The trial court's examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was inadequate. The accused were not specifically confronted with the material objects or statements attributed to them, violating procedural safeguards.

9. Admissibility and Reliability of Statements under Section 27, Evidence Act:
The court found the statements under Section 27, Evidence Act, inadmissible as they included self-incriminatory details. The recoveries based on these statements were also deemed unreliable due to procedural lapses and lack of independent witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was found tainted, and significant gaps remained in linking the accused to the crime. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 302 and 201, IPC were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.