SUNIL BATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28.9.70, a Van of Union Bank was carrying cash. It was intercepted by a car allegedly carrying the 4 appellants and H.S. Ahlawalia who later on turned approver. The Van was forced to a nearby secluded place by the occupants of the car. Driver of the Van and gunman of the Bank resisted and were shot. The other 2 occupants of the Van under threats were compelled to transfer 2 cash boxes containing Rs 6 lakhs to the car which which then sped away carrying the loot. The dacoity was witnessed by a young boy of 17,18 years. The prosecution recovered a substantial part of the loot from the appellants except from Vipin Jaggi. One of the participant in the dacoity turned approver. Trial Court convicted Sunil Batra for causing the deaths of gunman and the driver and for dacoity and senterced him to death. Other 3 appellants were sentenced to imprisonments for life. Appellants appealed to High Court. As facts were in great detail, very long judgment was written. Relevant pantions are :- On the question of identification, it was held on consideration of Yashwant Vs State 1972. U.J. (Sc). 923; Ramzon V. Emperor AIR. 1929. Sind. 149; R. Vs. Dwyer (1925) 2.K.B.799; Arthurs Vs A.G. (1971) 55. Cr. A.R. 161; Robert William Long (1973) 57 Cr.A.R. 871; Rex Vs Turnbull (1976) 3. All ER. 549; Delhi Adm. V. Balakrishan AIR. 1972. S.C. 3; Rameshwar Singh Vs State AIR. 1972. S.C. 102; Hasib Vs State AIR, 1972. S.C. 283; Mulkh Raj Vs Delhi Adm. AIR. 1974 SC. 1723; In re Sangiah AIR. 1948. Mad. 113, Satya Narain Vs State AIR. 1953 All 385, that unjustified refusal to participate in an identification parade may visit the persons who so refused with adverse consequences. Even in cases of poor identification on which it is unsafe to act upon by itself, it can be acted upon Safely when there is supporting evidence. A delicate balance has been reconciling the public interest in social defence and the need to avoid that danger of innocent men being convicted. Correct identification is of utmost importance in Criminal trials. It serves to remind us of the dangers involved and yet, at the same time of the danger of adopting any rigid and pre-conceived approach Value of evidence of witnessess who identify persons previously unknown to them would depend on many factors. Identification is a complex proces whose appreciation needs careful consideration because a sincere witness is also liable to make a genuine mistake. Every witness identified the accused to the extent he could giving some of the physical features about particular culprits and this made their evidence natural.

(2.) Public Witness . 35 who had stated during investigation that he had seen accused doing target practice by pistol did not say so in the Court and was declared hostile and appellants claimed him to be untrustworthy. It was held that Sat Pal Vs Delhi Adm. AIR. 1976. S.C. 296 ; Bhagwan Singh Vs State (1976) 1 SCC. 389, lay down that there was no legal bar to testimony of a hostile witness being considered if corroborated and hence Shivaji Vs State 1973 2 SCC. 793 did not apply. The witness was not an accessary after-the-fact, He was not a participis Criminis and was not an accomplice (R. K. Dalmea Vs Delhi Admn. A.I.R. 1962. Sc. 1821. A person who does not disclose knowledge of Commission of an offence does not became accessary after-the-fact per Mahadeo Vs. King RIR. 1936. P.C. 242 ; State Vs Sri Lal AIR. 1960. Pat. 459.

(3.) That the accused persons during investigation had made various disclosure Statements about discovery of currency notes, the pistol, the car used in the Crime etc. It was held on consideration of Pulukuri Vs Emperor AIR. 1947. P.C. 67; Prabhu Vs State AIR. 1963 S.C. 113; State Vs Deoman AIR. 1960. SC. 125; Deconandon Vs State AIR. 1955. SC 801 ; Wasim Khan Vs State AIR. 1956. SC. 400; Ram Krishan Vs State AIR. 1955. SC. 104 ; Jaffer Hussain Vs State AIR 1970. SC. 1934 ; Balbhir Singh Vs State AIR. 1957. S.C. 216 ; Md. Snayatullah Vs State AIR. 1976. S.C. 483 ; Him. Pra. Adm. Vs Stat AIR 1972. S.C. 975 Aher Raja Vs State AIR, 1956, SC, 217 that any.