SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISSENTED from. If the accused is a stranger to the prosecution witnesses and he claims identification his request in this regard must always be allowed because it is only by holding his test identification that the veracity of the eye witnesses could be checked. And if the prosecution turns down the accused's request for identification it runs the risk of the veracity of the eye witnesses being challenged on that ground. In the instant case the eye witnesses did not know the appellant from before; according to their own admission it was only after questioning him that they had come to know about his name. Obviously, therefore, the appellant was a complete stranger to them. In view of this it was absolutely necessary that the appellant should have been put up for identification when from the very beginning he had been repeatedly making requests for his test identification. On every occasion his request in this regard was turned down. Probably, the prosecution was not sure that the eye witnesses would succeed in identifying him and that is why his request for identification was always ignored. In such a situation it would not be proper to place much reliance on the evidence given by the witnesses in court. It is quite possible that the appellant was arrested somewhere else and the police subsequently framed him up in this case. In any event the case against him together as they were filed by one and the same person, namely, Suresh Chandra, and are also more or less inter-dependent.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows :- One Sheopujan Lal Jaiswal was a resident of Madanpur Bazar situate in the cirele of P. S. Rudrapur, district Deoria. In his house he ran a shop also. On 28-12 -1970, at about 7.30 P.M., he was inside his shop doing something in the company of his sons Hari Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. THE shop was electrified and there was thus enough light in the shop at that time. While Sheopujan Lal and his sons were so sitting in their shop, 14 or 15 dacoits arrived there. THEy demanded the key of the iron safe from them. In the meantime, one Munni Lal, who lived next door, also happened to arrive there. One of the dacoits fired towards him whereupon he ran for his life shouting. Hearing his shouts several persons collected near the house of Sheopujan Lal Jaiswal. Kanhaiya Lal, son of Sheopujan Lal Jaiswal, gave a slip to the dacoits and ran inside the residential portion of his house. From there he brought out a gun and fired at the dacoits standing inside his shop. Sensing danger the dacoits left the shop and tried to escape. THE villagers, however, gave them a fight and killed three of them at the spot. THEy also caught one of them alive but the rest managed to escape. THE person caught was questioned and he gave out his name as Suresh Chandra the appellant before us. He was searched and a pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. THE appellant was then locked in a room and Munni Lal was sent to Thana to make a report. He made a report about this incident at 8.50 P.M. S. I. Surya Pratap Singh was present at the Thana when the report was made. He immediately left for the spot reaching there at 10 P. M. THEre he recorded the statements of the material witnesses, inspected the locality and drew the site plan Ex K.a-8. THEreafter, Hari Lal son of Sheopujan Lal Jaiswal handed over to him the pistol and cartridges which had been recovered from the possession of the appellant. He kept these things in a parcel and duly sealed it. THEreafter, he took charge of the custody of the appellant and sent him to Thana under police escort. Having done that, he held inquests on the dead bodies of the dacoits who had been killed by the villagers. After the usual investigation was over, the appellant was sent up to stand his trial under Sec. 395/397 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Two charge sheets were filed against him, one under Section 396/397 IPC and the other under Section 25 Arms Act. That is why, two trials took place in this case and after being convicted the appellant filed two appeals, one against his conviction under Section 395/397 IPC and the other against his conviction under Section 25 Arms Act. It is these two appeals which are before us.

(3.) THE story of the crime as narrated by the witnesses stands unchallenged and conclusively proves the commission of an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and indeed the learned counsel for the appellant has made no attempt to question the factum of the occurrence. Accordingly, all that is necessary for me in this case is to examine the evidence and endeavour Ho judge whether or not the participation of the appellant in this crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt.