Bombay High Court
Vilas Vasantrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 20 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ1854
JUDGMENT Majithia, J.
1. Vilas Vasantrao Patil, Sharmaraj Pandian Nadar, Santosh Babu Shetty and Ashok Rajaram Wadekar, original accused Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, were charged under Section 395, in the alternative under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., for along with an absconding autorickshaw driver, in furtherance of their common intention, having robbed Sanju s/o Vel Yadan Ikha of one Citizen-make wrist watch and cash of Rs. 10/- by putting him in fear of instant death/hurt, on July 10, 1991, at about 12.45 a.m. on L.B.S. Marg, opposite Janata Market, Bhandup, Bombay. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were separately charged under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the I.P.C. for having used deadly arms like swords, while committing the said offence or robbery. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also charged under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Additional charge was framed against original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for having concealed the robbed articles.
2. The charges having been proved, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, vide judgment and order dated December 10, 1993, in Sessions Case No. 932/1991, convicted and sentenced original accused Nos. 1 to 4 as under :-
Original accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34, under Section 397 read with Section 395 I.P.C., under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, and under Section 414 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years, 7 years, one month and 6 months, respectively. All the sentences imposed upon him in this case and in the connected cases were ordered to run concurrently. He was allowed the set-off for his dentention as an under-trial for the period from July 10, 1991 to December 9, 1993.
Original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 and under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and each was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and R.I. for six months, respectively. The sentences imposed upon them in this case and in the connected cases were ordered to run concurrently. They were allowed the set-off their detention as under-trial for the period from July 12, 1991, to October 13, 1993, and from July 12, 1991 to December 9, 1993, respectively. Consequently, they had undergone the sentences imposed upon them.
Original accused No. 2 was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34, under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years, R.I. for 7 years and R.I. for one month, respectively. All the sentences imposed upon him in this case and in the connected cases were ordered to run concurrently. He was allowed the set-off for the period from July 10, 1991 to September 16, 1993, for his detention as an under-trial. He challenged his conviction and sentences in this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1994. During the tendency of the appeal he expired and the appeal stood abated. The appeal filed by him was rendered infructuous as a result of his death and was disposed of as such.
Original accused No. 1 and his associates were involved in six criminal cases of robbery and dacoity. Original accused No. 1 has challenged his conviction and sentenced recorded in Sessions Cases Nos. 933/91, 932/91 and 935/91, in this Court in three criminal appeals. This appeals pertains to his conviction and sentenced in Session Case No. 932/91.
3. The prosecution story, briefly put, is that there original accused Nos. 1 to 4 had formed the common intention to rob solitary persons passing over the roads; the they proceeded in an auto-rickshaw during the night intervening July 9, and July 10, 1991, over the roads on which they were likely to rob solitary persons with valuable articles; that while so roaming at about 12.45 a.m. they stopped Sanju s/o Vel Yadan Ikha who was passing over L.B.S. Marg on way home; that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 got out of the auto-rickshaw armed with a sword each; that one of them put the point of the sword on the neck of Sanju and told him in Hindi to hand over whatever valuables he had and threatened him that he would be cut off if he failed to do so; that one of then snatched away the wrist watch which he was wearing and they also took out a ten rupee note from his pocket; that at that time Sanju saw two persons walking towards him from behind the auto-rickshaw; that after getting the watch and cash from him, the persons armed with swords returned to the auto-rishaw and one of them called out "Weally run we have to go", that the two persons who were walking towards him also turned back and all four got into the rickshaw and the rickshaw was then driven off; that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended in the evening of July 10, 1991, while enquiring about the suspect in robbery of cash and wrist watches from the bananas godown; that during their search, some cash and wrist watches were found; that on the basis of statements made by the two apprehended accused, at the instances of accused No. 2 some cash, citizen watches and two swords were recovered and at the instance of accused No. 1 cash of Rs. 4,000/-, one broken gold chain, two finger rings and a Citizen wrist watch were recovered; that original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found with stolen goods; that from original accused No. 3 a Citizen and Time Star watches were recovered and from original accused No. 4 a Citizen watch and cash were recovered;
That Sanju, after being robbed, had gone home and out of fear did not go to the police station; that he told about the robbers to his friends; that on July 15, his friends told him that the police had recovered some valuables which had been robbed; Sanju consequently went to Bhandup Police Station to make enquiries; the information given by him was recorded by S.I. Nadaf in Ex. 13 as First Information Report; Panchanama of the scene of offence was recorded according to his statement and then he was shown the recovered articles and he identified the wrist watch belonging to him out of those articles; in the identification parade which was subsequently conducted, Sanju is alleged to have identified the four accused; he also identified the four accused in Court.
That on the basis of information given by original accused No. 1, the police came across one Anita residing in the room from which original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were apprehended; original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were apprehended on the basis of the information supplied by Anita; the common object of the four accused was confirmed.
4. The prosecution, to sustain the charges under Section 395, in the alternative under Section 392 read with Section 34, and under Section 397 read with Section 395, I.P.C., relied on the evidence of the complainant P.W. 3 Sanju Vel Yadan Ikha - and the identification parade conducted by P.W. 5 - Vijay Vasant Tawade. Admittedly, the accused were not known to the complainant prior to the incident. P.W. 3 complainant - deposed that in July 1991, he resided in a hut near Mangatram Petrol Pump and worked at Asha tea stall on Wari Road. He used to work from 5.00 a.m. till 12 midnight and after completing his work, he would walk back to his residence. On July 9, 1991, after completing his work he was returning home. When he reached Janata Market on L.B.S. Marg at about 12.30 a.m., an auto-rickshaw which passed from behind him halted in front of him. Two persons holding swords got down from the rickshaw and approached him. One of them put the point of sword of his neck and asked him in Hindi to hand over whatever valuables he had and threatened him that on his failing to hand over, he would be cut off. One of them snatched away his wrist watch which he was wearing and the other took out a ten rupee note from his pocket. While he was being threatened, he saw two more persons walking towards him from the auto-rickshaw. The two persons armed with swords started running back to the auto-rickshaw when one of them said in Hindi "Weally run, they had to go". The two persons with swords proceeded towards the auto-rickshaw and the two persons who had come from behind the rickshaw also went towards the rickshaw one of whom sat near the rickshaw driver and the other sat in the rear side with the two persons with swords. The rickshaw was driven away. He had properly observed the four persons. In the identification parade, he had identified all the accused. He also identified the wrist watch (Article 1) which was snatched from him.
P.W. 5 - Vijay Vasant Tawade - Special Executive Magistrate, conducted the identification parade. He deposed, that he selected 10 dummy persons out of 12-13 persons. He then asked the accused whether they had any complainant against the police and they told him that they had no complaint. He took the selected 10 dummies in a closed room for identification parade and made them to stand in a line. He then sent one panch to bring two accused and when they were brought, he asked them to choose their place to stand in the line of dummies. They stood between dummy Nos. 2 and 3, and 5 and 6. They were offered to change their clothes but they declined. The other panch was sent to fetch the complainant. After he was brought in, he was asked to identify the robbers who had robbed him of his wrist watch and Rs. 10/- on the night intervening July 9, and July 10, 1991. He correctly identified original accused Nos. 1 and 2. He was asked to go out and wait. Another witness was then called and he identified original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as the persons who were armed with swords during the robbery. On panch was again sent to bring the other two accused after following the same procedure. The complainant and the other witness identified original accused Nos. 3 and 4 also.
6. This Court has issued instructions for conducting identification parades and these are contained in the Criminal Manual issued by this Court for the guidance of the Criminal courts and Officers subordinate to it. Paras 16(3)(i) to (xxii) of Chapter I, contain the procedure for holding identification parades. It is stipulated therein that the Executive Magistrate must first acquaint himself, very briefly, with the facts of the case and find out who is to be put in the identification parade and who are the witnesses to be called up for identification. Two independent respectable persons should be associated with the identification parade. The identification parade should be arranged in a room or place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the police, should not be able to look into it. If there is one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen persons placed in the parade. If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single parade. The police officers and/or constables should be asked to withdraw themselves from the room or place where identification parade is being held. After the parade is arranged, one of the two respectable persons should be sent up to bring the accused from the lock-up. Care has to be taken to see that when the accused is being brought from the lock-up, the identifying witnesses do not have an opportunity of seeing them. They should be kept in quite a different room, out of sight of the lock-up. After doing so, the Executive Magistrate should commerce writing the memorandum. It should include the place, date and time at which the identification parade commenced; the names, ages, occupations and full addresses of the two respectable persons; the names and the approximate ages of the persons standing in the parade, mentioning clearly, one below the other in numerical order their positions in the parade; the fact that no persons other than those in the parade and the two respectable persons were allowed to remain in the room and that all the police officers and constables were asked to go out; and that a particular respectable person fetched the accused from the lock-up and that the identifying witnesses were in a different room and they could not see the accused while being brought from the lock-up to the identification room. When the accused is brought, the Executive Magistrate should ask him to take whatever place he likes in the parade and such place must be mentioned in the memorandum. The accused should then be asked if he wants to make any alteration in his dress. He should be allowed to put on or remove a cap or coat. This fact has to be noted in the memorandum. If he does not wish to change his dress, this fact too should be noted in the memorandum. Thereafter one of the respectable persons should be asked to fetch the first identifying witness. When the witness arrives, the Executive Magistrate should question him and ascertain from him whether he had an opportunity to see the culprit at any time subsequent to the offence or after the arrest. He may either record the statement separately or make a reference to that statement in the memorandum. The witness should then be asked to view the parade carefully and see whether he would be able to identify the person who had robbed him. If he identifies any person, he should be asked to go forward and touch that person. The fact that the indentifying witness identified the accused has to be recorded in the memorandum. After the identifying witness leaves the room, the accused has to be asked again whether he wants to change his place in the parade or change his dress. If he changes his place or declines to do so, this fact should be noted in the memorandum. Similarly, if he changes hid dress or declines to do so, this fact also should be noted in the memorandum. One of the respectable persons has then to be asked to bring the second identifying witness and the same procedure has to be followed to each subsequent witness. After the memorandum is completed, the Executive Magistrate shall make an endorsement as envisaged in Para 16(3)(xvi).
These instructions are not statutory but have been consistently followed to ensure a fair and unassailable identification parade.
7. Reverting back to the evidence brought on record, the following facts emerge :-
(i) The independent respectable persons who were allegedly associated with the identification parade were not examined at the trial.
(ii) P.W. 5 did not ensure that when the accused were being brought from the lock-up, the identifying witnesses did not have an opportunity of seeing them.
(iii) The parade was not arranged in a room or place which was such that the identifying witnesses as well as the persons connected with the police were not able to look into.
(iv) P.W. 5 did not arrange for different sets of dummies for the purpose of identification of two sets of accused persons.
(v) P.W. 5 admitted that after the accused were taken out from the lock-up, they were taken towards the temple and from there to the corner of the canteen and then towards the parade room. He did not say that he had ensured that when the accused were being brought in the parade room, the identifying witnesses had no opportunity of seeing them. P.W. 5 also admitted that constables accompanied the accused when they were brought from the lock-up up to the outside door of the parade room, meaning thereby that constables were present near the parade room or at least they were close by and had access to the parade room.
(vi) P.W. 5 admitted that on each occasion only two accused were placed amongst the dummies for identification. P.W. 3, the complainant, in his examination-in-chief stated that when he was brought in the parade room, he noticed that 10 persons were standing in a line and the Special Executive Magistrate asked him to identify the persons who had robbed him out of those who were standing in that room and he identified 4 persons out of those 10 persons who were standing in a line as the persons who had robbed him P.W. 3 stated thus :-
"I was called back to the police station after about 4 days. I was made to sit in a room at the police station after I reached there. I was alone in that room. After about an hour I was led into another room which had been totally closed. There were ten persons standing in a line in that room. One SEM was also in that room. The SEM asked me to identify the persons who had robbed me out of those who were standing in that room. I identified 4 persons out of those 10 persons who had been standing in a line as my robbers. I had told the SEM actions of each of those four persons when I was identifying each one of them. These four accused are the same persons who I had identified before the SEM out of the line of ten persons in the closed room.
(vii) After P.W. 3 had participated in the identification parade, his further statement was recorded by the police.
8. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 reveals that the identification parade was held in breach of the instructions issued by this Court. The evidence of the complainant (P.W. 3), in so far as it relates to the manner in which the identification parade was conducted, is in conflict with that of P.W. 5, the Special Executive Magistrate. This Court in Ramcharan B. Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra, 1995 (1) All MR 122 (Bom) has held thus :-
"15. It is well settled that the evidence of identification can only be relied upon if all the chances of the suspects being shown to the witnesses prior to their test identification are eliminated.
To ensure that firstly, the prosecution has to adduce link evidence to the effect that right from the time of arrest till being lodged in jail, the faces of suspects were kept veiled and no one had the opportunity to see them. This has not been done in the instant case. No link evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove this fact. Since the burden of showing that right from arrest till being lodged in jail, the faces of the suspects were throughout kept veiled was on the prosecution and as it has failed to discharge this burden the evidence of identification is rendered worthless in the instant case. We are reinforced in our view by the decision , Asharif v. The State, Respondent, wherein in paragraph 35, James, J. spoke for the Division Bench, thus it is the duty of the prosecution to show that from the time of the arrest of an accused person to the time of his admission into the jail, precaution were taken to ensure that he was not seen by any outsider.
Secondly, a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6 Mr. Sheety, the Executive Magistrate who conducted the identification of the appellants, shows that when on 12-11-1986, he visited police station Vakola in connection with conducting the identification parade, he found that the appellants were confined in a lock-up room and that the identifying witness, who was a lady, Mrs. Theresa Hill, was already sitting in the police station. In such a situation, there was reasonable possibility of Mrs. Theresa Hill seeing the appellants prior to the identification parade. In our view, this alone is sufficient to discard the identification evidence against the appellants. In , Asharif v. The State, (supra) the Court observed in paragraph 33 that the plea of shown does not require to be affirmatively established; it is sufficient if the accused can create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court. 'Direct evidence may not be available but he may discharge his burden by showing, for example that he and the witnesses were present in the police station, at the same time.' In our view, the aforesaid observations are tailor-made for the case.
The identification evidence in the instant case cannot be accepted. This was the solitary evidence on which the original accused No. 1 was identified as the person having taken part in the robbery. If this evidence is ignored, there is no other evidence on record to prove the participation of the accused in the crime in so far as it relates of the offences under Sections 392, 395 and 397 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the State did not refer to any other evidence on record to substantiate the conviction of the appellant-accused for these offences.
9. Section 4 of the Arms Act says that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification, and thereupon, no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or specification as specified in that notification. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the terms 'arms which term means and includes a sharp-edged weapon. A sword is a weapon of that kind. The prosecution did not lead any evidence that a notification had been issued by the Central Government as provided for in Section 4 of the Arms Act prohibiting possession or carrying of arms in the area where the offence was committed. Unless the notification is issued, the possessions or carrying of the arms is not prohibited. There is no proof on the file that with reference to the area where the offence was committed, a notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act was issued. Consequently, the conviction of original accused No. 1 under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained.
10. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that the valuables robbed from the complainant were found in the possession of the accused and pursuant to the statements made by them, those valuables were got recovered. Original accused No. 1, at best can be held guilty of concealing stolen property and for that he has been convicted under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. His conviction and sentence on that count are upheld.
11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is party allowed and the following order is passed :-
(i) The conviction of the appellant-original accused No. 1 and the sentence imposed upon his under Section 392 read with Section 34 under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the I.P.C and under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act are set aside.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant-original accused No. 1 under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the sentence of R.I. for 6 months are upheld.
(iii) It is stated at the Bar that the appellant-original accused No. 1 has already undergone more than 4 years imprionment. If it is so, he shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
12. Before we part with this judgment, we are pleased to observe the Mr. I. S. Thakur who appeared for the State rendered us valuable assistance. He was fair and forthright in assisting us. His able assistance enabled us to reach the correct conclusion.
13. Appeal partly allowed.