9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 395 IPC 2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC 3. Identification of the accused 4. Use of First Information Report (FIR) as evidence 5. Conduct and reliability of Test Identification Parades (TIPs) 6. Legal sufficiency of evidence Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 395 IPC The trial court convicted all five accused under Section 395 IPC, sentencing four to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, however, acquitted three of the accused while maintaining the convictions of Sheikh Habib alias Tabarak (the appellant) and Sheikh Quddua alias Khudwa. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence against the appellant, particularly focusing on the identification process and the reliability of the witness testimonies. 2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC Akal Yadav, one of the accused, was additionally convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted him along with two others, leaving only the appellant and Sheikh Quddua with sustained convictions. The Supreme Court did not find sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction under Section 307 IPC for the appellant. 3. Identification of the Accused The prosecution's case heavily relied on the identification of the accused by witnesses. The Supreme Court scrutinized the identification process, noting that the appellant was identified by Inspector Jadunandan Singh (P.W. 10) during a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Court emphasized that the substantive evidence is the witness's statement in court, and TIPs serve to corroborate this testimony. The Court found inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the identification process, weakening the evidence against the appellant. 4. Use of First Information Report (FIR) as Evidence The High Court used the FIR (Ex. 1) to corroborate P.W. 10's testimony. The Supreme Court clarified that the FIR's principal object is to set the criminal law in motion and provide information for investigation. It cannot be used as substantive evidence to corroborate or contradict other witnesses, except its maker. The High Court's reliance on the FIR to support P.W. 10's identification was legally erroneous. 5. Conduct and Reliability of Test Identification Parades (TIPs) The Supreme Court found several issues with the TIPs conducted. The appellant was identified in a TIP held on February 14, 1963, despite being arrested on January 29, 1963. The delay and multiple TIPs raised doubts about the fairness and reliability of the process. The Court noted that effective precautions were not taken to prevent witnesses from seeing the accused before the TIPs, further undermining their reliability. 6. Legal Sufficiency of Evidence The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The identification by P.W. 10 lacked corroborative value due to procedural flaws in the TIPs and the improper use of the FIR. The Court emphasized that without substantive evidence of the appellant's involvement in the dacoity, the conviction could not be upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, finding no legal evidence connecting him to the alleged offense. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles in the use of FIRs and the conduct of TIPs to ensure fair and reliable identification of accused persons.
|
