2018 (8) TMI 2142 - SC - Indian Laws

Dacoity/Burglary - concrete proof to establish the participation of the appellant in the alleged crime or not - HELD THAT - There was no instance of alleged dacoity on the time and place of occurrence wherein the accused was a party, we find from the deposition of Reena Devi (PW1), daughter inlaw of the informant that on the intervening night of 11th and 12th January, 1999 on hearing some disturbance, she woke up and found the assailants armed with sticks, looting articles in the house. When she tried to resist, they assaulted her and took away her ornaments including golden bangle and a chain and also tried to snatch her child. A brief case of her husband Neeraj Kumar (PW2) containing clothes and cash of Rs.5,200/ has also been stolen. Altogether the worth of stolen property would be Rs.25,000/ . In that commotion, hearing her hue and cry her father in law PW3 (informant) and mother in law came there who objected the assailants and they too were assaulted by the accused. In the case on hand, before looking at the confessional statement made by the accused appellant in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, may be taken into fold for limited purposes. From the aforesaid statement of the appellant, it is clear that he had explained the way in which the accused committed the crime and shared the spoils. He disclosed the fact that Munna Manjhi was the Chief/Head of the team of assailants and the crime was executed as per the plan made by him - The recoveries of used polythene pouches of wine, money, clothes, chains and bangle were all made at the disclosure by the accused which corroborates his confessional statement and proves his guilt. Therefore, the confessional statement of the appellant stands and satisfies the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also clear from the statement of the accused appellant that the inmates of the house suffered injuries at the hands of the accused party as they had beaten them with the pieces of wood (sticks) and created terror among them. The recovery of bloodstained sticks from the orchard of Kamal Jain and the FSL report (Ext.X) proves the circumstance with no manner of doubt. Another facet of the case as portrayed by the appellant in his defense is that the informant implicated the appellant in the crime with the connivance of I.O. due to old enmity. However, we do not find any evidence or material on record in support of such claim made by the appellant. On the other hand, not only by the recovery of Rs.400/ from the house of appellant his participation stands proved, with the other incriminating evidence available on record. There are no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts - there are no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's conviction based on evidence and confessional statements.
2. Adequacy of the identification of the appellant by witnesses.
3. Validity of the appellant's alleged motive in committing the crime.
4. Credibility of the prosecution's case and the claim of false implication due to enmity.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellant's conviction based on evidence and confessional statements:
The appellant argued that there was no concrete proof of his participation in the crime, and the trial and High Court convicted him based on flimsy grounds. The appellant contended that the recovery of Rs.400 from his possession was insufficient to implicate him in the crime, and his confessional statement lacked legal validity as it was not made before a Magistrate and was doubted by the trial Court. However, the Court noted that the confessional statement led to the discovery of new facts, including the recovery of incriminating material and looted cash, which corroborated the appellant's involvement in the crime. The Court emphasized that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, information leading to the discovery of facts can be proved against the accused, even if the statement was made in police custody.

2. Adequacy of the identification of the appellant by witnesses:
The appellant argued that he was not identified by any witness in the test identification parade or in Court, which should indicate his innocence. The Court acknowledged that identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence and are primarily for assisting the investigation. The non-identification of the appellant by witnesses did not vitiate the prosecution's case, especially since the confessional statement and other evidence established his participation in the crime. The Court cited precedents indicating that failure to hold a test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in Court inadmissible.

3. Validity of the appellant's alleged motive in committing the crime:
The appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to prove his motive for committing the crime. The Court noted that while motive is significant in cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is not crucial when direct evidence is available. In this case, the confessional statement of the appellant depicted the motive of the accused group to commit robbery, thereby establishing the appellant's participation in the crime.

4. Credibility of the prosecution's case and the claim of false implication due to enmity:
The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated in the crime due to enmity with the informant and connivance with the Investigating Officer. The Court found no evidence supporting this claim and noted that the recovery of Rs.400 and other incriminating evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court concluded that the prosecution proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the conviction and sentence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity or illegality in the High Court's judgment. The prosecution's evidence, including the confessional statements and recoveries, sufficiently established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.