The evidence as to the identity of a person is
admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(2012) 9 SCC 284, this
Court has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: -
“.... The court identification itself is a good
identification in the eye of the law. It is not always
necessary that it must be preceded by the test
identification parade. It will always depend upon
the facts and circumstances of a given case. In
one case, it may not even be necessary to hold
the test identification parade while in the other, it
may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket
formula can be stated in this regard.”
In the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala(2013) 14 SCC 266, regarding the evidential value of the test identification parade, this
Court has stated in paragraph 58 as under: -
“.... The identification parade is conducted by the police.
The actual evidence regarding identification is that which
is given by the witness in court. A test identification
parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter
of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test
identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative
of the identification of the accused in court. ....”
In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v. State
of Tripura8, this Court has made following
observations in para 20 which are reproduced below: -
“..... The primary object of the test identification
parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the
persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if
the offenders are not personally known to the
witnesses.
The whole object behind the test
identification parade is really to find whether or
not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta
Prasad v. Delhi Admn., this Court stated that the
failure to hold the test identification parade does
not make the evidence of identification at the trial
inadmissible. ....”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2478 OF 2014
Motilal Yadav Vs State of Bihar
Date ;November 25, 2014.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against
judgment and order dated 5.11.2012, passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby the conviction of the
accused-appellant Motilal Yadav recorded under Section
364A read with Section 34 and Section 120B read with
Section 364A IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, ETC
III, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Case No. 1053 of 2003/Trial No. 12
Page 1
of 2004, is affirmed.
The accused-appellant, along with
other co-accused, has been convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years under
Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC.
3.
Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent.
4.
Prosecution story in brief is that PW-6, Subhash
Chandra Singh, gave a written information at Police Station,
Kahalgaon, on 23.4.2002 at 8.05 a.m. that his grandson
Sagar Kumar (PW-5) has been kidnapped.
The informant
narrated in the written report that the victim (Sagar Kumar),
aged six years, along with his sister PW-4 Riya Kumari, aged
four years, was going to St. Joseph NTPC School, Kahalgaon
Page 2
in a rickshaw pulled by PW-1 Anil Ram.
The informant
further told that the rickshaw puller told him that one person
came to the rickshaw and took the victim after telling him
that his father was calling him at the railway station.
On
receiving information, the informant immediately rushed to
the location where the rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1) was
waiting for the victim’s return.
An FIR No. 117/2002 was
recorded at the police station and the investigations were
taken up by the Investigating Officer.
5.
Investigation revealed that after one day of kidnapping
of the child, a demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made by
someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash
Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy.
When several
calls were made, on 17.5.2002 the victim’s parents agreed
to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs according to their economic condition.
PW-3, Sourav Kumar (father of the victim) passed on the
phone number of the caller to the police.
The kidnappers
called father of the victim to Haldwani (Uttarakhand), on
Page 3
which the witness (PW-3) desired to know as to by what
route he could reach there. The caller informed the father of
the victim to come by Farakka Express to Lucknow, and from
there by a meter gauge train to Lal Kuan from where he
would be getting tempo (three wheeler) to reach Haldwani.
Accordingly PW-3 Sourav Kumar reached Haldwani on
21.5.2002 with money, and stayed at Kamta Hotel and
waited for the caller’s messenger from where he was taken
by the present appellant (Motilal Yadav) to the side of rivulet
near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (Haldwani). Two persons
(co-accused) were already waiting there.
After making
enquiry as to the amount brought by the witness (PW-3), two
of the accused persons took the bag.
Thereafter PW-3
Sourav Kumar was taken to Haldwani Bareilly Road where
the victim was handed over to his father.
Victim’s father,
along with his recovered son, reached back Kahalgaon on
25.5.2002, and narrated the entire story to the police. After
collecting
prosecution
evidence
filed
and
interrogating
charge-sheet
against
the
seven
witnesses,
accused,
namely, Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav @ Tuntun
Page 4
Yadav, Motilal Yadav (present appellant), Bina Devi, Bijay
Yadav, Prem Prakash Yadav and Mamta Devi.
6.
It appears that the trial court, after framing the charge
and recording evidence, on conclusion of trial, found all the
above seven accused guilty of charge of offences punishable
under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and under
Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC, and after hearing
of the matter on sentence, each one of them was sentenced
to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further
imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 120B
read with Section 364A IPC.
7.
The convicts challenged the order of the trial court
before the High Court. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 208 of 2006
was filed by accused Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav
@ Tuntun Yadav and Motilal Yadav, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
Page 5
232 of 2006 was filed by Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav and Prem
Prakash Yadav, and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 246 of 2006
was filed by the accused Mamta Devi. All the three appeals
were disposed of by the High Court by its common order
dated 5.11.2012 which has been challenged before us in the
present appeal by accused/convict Motilal Yadav.
8.
Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned Amicus Curiae, on behalf
of the appellant, argued before us that the High Court has
decided the criminal appeals without scrutinizing the entire
evidence on record, and as such, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside. He referred to the cases of Rama and
others v. State of Rajasthan1, Badam Singh v. State of
M.P.2, Prasad alias Hari Prasad Acharya v. State of
Karnataka3 and Ram Ratan v. State of Rajasthan4. We
have gone through the cases relied on behalf of the
appellant, but we are of the view that the above mentioned
1
2
3
4
(2002)
(2003)
(2009)
(2010)
4 SCC 571
12 SCC 792
3 SCC 174
13 SCC 509
Page 6
cases are of little help in the present case, for the reason
that neither the impugned order is cryptic nor without
discussion of evidence on record. Statement of each of the
witnesses, namely, PW-1 Anil Ram (Rickshaw Puller), PW-2
Neetu Singh (mother of the victim), PW-3 Sourav Kumar
(father of the victim), PW-4 Riya Kumari (sister of the victim),
PW-5 Sagar Kumar (victim) and PW-6 Subhash Chandra
Singh (informant and grandfather of the victim), has been
discussed at length by the High Court, apart from discussing
the evidence of formal witnesses, namely, PW-7 Ramji Singh
(constable), PW-9 Gouri Mohan Mitra and the Investigating
Officer PW-8 Shivjee Singh and PW-10 Anand Prakash Singh.
The High Court has also taken note of the statement of DW-1
Jawahar Jha. The High Court, after discussing the evidence
of each of the above mentioned witnesses, has further
discussed the evidence on record as to how from the
corroboration of the statements of the witnesses, the entire
prosecution story and the charge stood proved.
Page 7
9.
PW-1 Anil Ram has corroborated the fact that he was
taking the children Sagar Kumar and Riya Kumari to the
school when the accused (Prem Yadav), identified by him
before the trial court, took the child by telling him that his
father was calling him at the Railway Station. PW-2 Neetu
Singh has corroborated that rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1)
informed on phone at 7.15 a.m. about the incident. She has
further corroborated the fact regarding demand of ransom
made by the kidnappers for release of the victim (Sagar
Kumar).
PW-3 Sourav Kumar is the most important witness
of the case who had opportunity to see most of the accused
including the present appellant (Motilal Yadav) as he went
to Haldwani for release of his minor son from their custody.
He (PW 3) has narrated that after the demand of ransom was
made, he agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs and sought time to
make the arrangement of money.
He further told that on
receiving call on 20.5.2002, he asked the caller as to how he
could reach Haldwani on which the caller told about the
trains available for Lucknow and Lal Kuan.
PW-3 Sourav
Kumar, has stated in his evidence that when he reached
Page 8
Haldwani, he stayed in Kamta Hotel. As to the role of the
present appellant, the witness (PW-3) has told that the
present appellant is the person who enquired from him if he
is father of Sagar Kumar, and then took him in a rickshaw by
the side of rivulet near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti
(Haldwani). The witness has further narrated about the role
of the other accused in his statement which we do not think
it necessary to discuss here as other convicts are not
appellants before us. The witness has given all the details
as to how money was taken to the place where his son was
released and handed over to him from Haldwani-Bareilly
Road. Having gone through the record and the impugned
order, we are of the view that the High Court, in the
impugned order, has discussed at length the prosecution
evidence which was believed by it. We find no force in the
argument that the High Court’s order is cryptic or brief.
10. Another argument advanced before us is that no test
identification parade in the present case was held, as such,
the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court, has
Page 9
been wrongly upheld by the High Court. In this connection,
our attention is drawn to the case of Kanan and others v.
State of Kerala5. In said case, this Court has opined that
failure to conduct test identification parade raises serious
doubt about the testimony of the witnesses.
On going
through said case, we find that this Court doubted evidence
of a particular witness (PW-25 of said case) who told the
Court that he could identify the accused persons (not known
to him) who were running away from the scene of
occurrence.
Contrary to that, in the present case the
testimony of PW-3 Sourav Kumar is natural as he explained
in what manner he reached Haldwani, and he had enough
time to identify the accused who accompanied him to the
persons who took money from him whereafter the victim
was released.
11. The evidence as to the identity of a person is
admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
5
(1979) 3 SCC 319
Page 10
In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan6, this
Court has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: -
“.... The court identification itself is a good
identification in the eye of the law. It is not always
necessary that it must be preceded by the test
identification parade. It will always depend upon
the facts and circumstances of a given case. In
one case, it may not even be necessary to hold
the test identification parade while in the other, it
may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket
formula can be stated in this regard.”
12. In the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala7, regarding
the evidential value of the test identification parade, this
Court has stated in paragraph 58 as under: -
“.... The identification parade is conducted by the
police.
The
actual
evidence
regarding
identification is that which is given by the witness
in court. A test identification parade cannot be
claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere
identification of an accused in a test identification
parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the
identification of the accused in court. ....”
6
7
(2012) 9 SCC 284
(2013) 14 SCC 266
Page 11
13. In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v.
State
of
Tripura8,
this
Court
has
made
following
observations in para 20 which are reproduced below: -
“..... The primary object of the test identification
parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the
persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if
the offenders are not personally known to the
witnesses.
The whole object behind the test
identification parade is really to find whether or
not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta
Prasad v. Delhi Admn.9, this Court stated that the
failure to hold the test identification parade does
not make the evidence of identification at the trial
inadmissible. ....”
14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by this
Court, we are unable to accept the submission of learned
amicus curiae that not holding of test identification parade in
the present case is fatal for the prosecution.
8
9
(2014) 4 SCC 747
AIR 1958 SC 350
Page 12
15. For the reasons, as discussed above, we do not find any
force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
....................................J.
[Vikramajit Sen]
....................................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
November 25, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment