Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Prom the evidence of the circle Inspector Mustafa Khan, who investigated the case, it would seem that he was at the time investigating six robbery cases in all and if was in the investigation of these cases that he recovered some cartridges from the 3rd accused Rangnath and a rifle from one Trimbak who had been arrested along with Daulat (the 2nd accused herein) in connection with those other cases. Although those cartridges have no connection with the present case, the circle Inspector found Rangnath having a bullet injury on one of his toes. The evidence shows that it was while he was investigating those other cases that this Officer arrested the present accused in connection with this case. Accused No. 3 was arrested in connection with this case on 26-4-1956 and the other two accused were arrested on 31-5-1956. That was how we were told by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the identification parade in this case was held as late as 16-6-1956 although the incident in question took place on 11-2-1956.

18. We might mention one more fact at this stage while we are still on the identification parade. Although Mr. Samant has not forcefully put before us, the fact remains that the parade was held on 16-6-1956, that is about four months after the date of the incident. There is, therefore, undoubtedly delay in holding the parade. The question, therefore, is whether that delay is such as would vitiate or take away the importance of the evidence as to the parade. As we have already pointed out, the accused were arrested in connection with this case, one on the 26th April and two on 31-5-1956. It is in evidence that the arrest of these accused in connection with this case came about as a result of the very same Circle Inspector investigating six other robbery cases which had taken place in another taluka and it was while he was investigating those cases that cartridges were found from the possession of the 3rd accused. It would seem from this evidence that it was after the finding of these cartridges from the house of the 3rd accused that the attention of the Circle Inspector came to be focussed upon the culprits in the present case. In view of these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any deliberate delay in the matter of the holding of the parade inasmuch as until 31-5-1956 accused Nos. 1 and 2 at any rate had not been arrested, and even the 3rd accused was arrested on 26-4-1956. Since, however, there is delay in the holding of the parade for reasons for which, it would appear, the Circle Inspector is not to be blamed, we have nonetheless to approach the evidence as to the identification parade with considerable caution. But as we have already pointed out, the only contention raised by the accused in connection with the parade was that no importance could be attached to that evidence by reason of the fact that they had been shown to the witnesses while they were in the police custody. We have already found upon the evidence before us and the facts of the case that that allegation has no force.