Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The charge against them was that on the intervening night of 28th- 29th February, 1984, they entered the house of deceased Mata Prasad. They killed him and hanged him in the house and also killed his daughter Munni Devi.

The case of the prosecution set up against the three accused and the fourth accused Pooran Singh is as follows :-

The motive of the crime is alleged to be a civil dispute pending in the civil court between accused Bhagwan Singh with his father Dayaram as one party and the deceased Mata Prasad as their adversary. They all lived in the neighbourhood of each other in village Murawali, Tehsil Lahar, P.S. Daboh, District - Bhind. The civil dispute was regarding opening of a door for access to the Chabutara between the house of the parties. The deceased had filed a Civil Suit No. 566A of 1986 and obtained an injunction on 20.10.1983 against the accused Bhagwan Singh restraining the latter from opening any door or window towards the Chabutara of the plaintiff.
The case of the prosecution is that accused Bhagwan Singh, therefore, hatched a plan to kill Mata Prasad with the help of the other co-accused. To accomplish their plan, in the midnight intervening 28th 29th February, 1984 they entered the house of deceased Mata Prasad and by throttling him by neck, killed him and hanged him with the hook of the door in the house. They also killed his daughter Munni Devi who was found dead inside the house with burns.
The main evidence led by the prosecution against the accused is the solitary testimony of alleged child eye-witness Arvind Kumar (PW-
28. Learned counsel for the respondents accused person has further contended that accused person were not known to the child witness nor any identification parade was arranged for this purpose. In the circumstances, dock identification in the court is not sufficient. However, we are of the opinion that the child witness was not cross- examined at all by the defence on the point of identification as to whether the accused person are previously known to him or not. Since it is not disputed that accused Bhagwan Singh is a next door neighbour of deceased Mata Prasad. Similarly, accused Sultan Singh and Laxman also belong to same village i.e. Murawali. In such a situation, it is to be presumed that these accused persons are previously known to child witness and as such, there is nothing wrong in the dock identification by the witness in the court room. These accused persons have also been named by the child witness in his police case diary statement (Ex.D/4) and no cross-examination has been made of the witness regarding his mentioning names of accused person in his police case diary statement. Although, the fact of deceased Munni Devi being set to fire has not been mentioned in his police case diary statement, however, it has been clearly mentioned that her mouth was gauged by Bhagwan Singh and Laxman and Sultan Singh were assaulting her. He being a child witness, such minor discrepancies in his statement are but natural and in the circumstances, his statement clearly inspires confidence regarding involvement of the accused persons in the crime."

We have also taken note of the fact that even after the alleged involvement of the three accused by the child witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the police, no test identification parade was held. In such circumstances, in our opinion, mere dock identification of the accused by the child in the court cannot be accepted with certainty as a reliable identification [see Japal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1996(4) Crimes 74 (SC)].

On the omission of not holding test identification parade the High Court has stated that the accused Bhagwan Singh lived in the neighbourhood of deceased Mata Prasad and the other two accused were also of the same village. Therefore, it was not necessary for the prosecution to have held a test identification parade when the accused was already known to the child.