2011 (1) TMI 1595 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Voluntariness and admissibility of confessions made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies and identification of accused.
3. Legality of specimen signature and handwriting collection.
4. Assessment of evidence against specific accused individuals.
5. Justification for the alteration of death sentence to life imprisonment.
6. Evaluation of acquittal of other accused persons.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility of Confessions:

The court examined whether the confessions of various accused persons, particularly those made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were voluntary. It was argued that the confessions were not voluntary as the accused were produced from police custody and were not assured that they would not be remanded back to police custody if they refused to confess. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 164 must be complied with in both form and essence. It was found that the Magistrates failed to ensure that the accused were free from police influence and did not adequately caution them about the consequences of their confessions. The court reiterated that a judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, especially when retracted, and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.

2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies and Identification of Accused:

The court analyzed the contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses regarding the number of attackers, the presence of light, and the identification of accused persons. It was noted that many eyewitnesses identified the accused for the first time in court without prior Test Identification Parades (TIP), which weakened their testimonies. The court held that identification in court without prior TIP is inherently weak and requires corroboration. The evidentiary value of photo identification was also discussed, emphasizing that it is not substantive evidence but can aid in investigation when corroborated by other evidence.

3. Legality of Specimen Signature and Handwriting Collection:

The court addressed the issue of whether the police had the authority to collect specimen signatures and handwriting of an accused during the investigation. It was argued that such collection was illegal before the 2005 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the court referred to the decision in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, which allowed for the collection of such evidence as it does not amount to being a witness against oneself under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The court found no fault in the procedure adopted by the investigating agency.

4. Assessment of Evidence Against Specific Accused Individuals:

The court focused on the evidence against Dara Singh (A1) and Mahendra Hembram (A3). It was noted that Mahendra Hembram had written letters confessing his involvement, which were corroborated by eyewitness identification in court. The court found that these letters provided sufficient corroboration for his identification and involvement in the crime. For Dara Singh, the court highlighted the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses regarding slogans raised in his name during the incident, which corroborated his identification.

5. Justification for the Alteration of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment:

The court examined whether the case fell within the "rarest of rare" category, justifying the death sentence. It concluded that the intention was to "teach a lesson" for religious activities rather than a premeditated murder, and thus, the High Court was correct in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The court referred to established principles in cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the norm, and death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.

6. Evaluation of Acquittal of Other Accused Persons:

The court upheld the acquittal of other accused persons, noting the lack of specific evidence against them and the presence of reasonable doubt. It emphasized the principle that when two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be accepted. The court agreed with the High Court's reasoning that the prosecution's case was weak against the acquitted individuals, who were poor tribals, and there was no safe basis for conviction.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh, Mahendra Hembram, and the CBI, affirming the High Court's judgment. It confirmed the life imprisonment sentences for Dara Singh and Mahendra Hembram and upheld the acquittal of the other accused due to the lack of credible evidence and procedural lapses in the investigation and trial process.