PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 25, 1967, at about 8 P. M. accused Pritam Singh, Dalip Singh, Ranki and Chandra Sahai. armed with pistols and knives, entered the house of the complainant Tekchand, situate in Ganganagar, to commit robbery. Tekchand and his wife Mst. Manbhari were available in the house. The accused Pritam Singh caught hold of Tekchand and took him to the stare-room. He gave blows to Tekchand with a 'lathi' and threatened him with dire consequences unless he parted with his valuables. Accused Ranki forcibly took off ornaments of Mst. Manbhari. On her raising an alarm, she was beaten. She however, managed to run away towards the gate. The accused Chandra Sahai tried to catch her. She somehow escaped from her residence. On hearing her cries Puran and others assembled on the spot. After sometime the accused took to their heels with the booty stolen by them. Tekchand lodged first information report with the Police Kotwali, Ganganagar, soon after the occurrence. In the course of investigation one Banta Singh was arrested by the Police. He disclosed the name of the accused Ranki. The police got clue in respect of the other accused persons from Ranki; both Ranki and Chandra Sahai were challaned in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ganganasar. That court committed them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for trial under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, on December 17, 1967. The other two accused Dalip Singh and Pritam Singh were arrested on Decemebr 17, 1967. Subsequently, they too were challaned in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ganganagar. The said Magistrate conducted preliminary enquiry and committed them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to face trial under Section 394, Indian Penal Code. The cases were subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge of the place. The trial court consolidated the two cases. The four accused denied to have commited any offence. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. In their statements recorded under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused again denied the indictment. The trial Court relied upon the solitary statement of Tekchand and convicted the accused Pritam Singh. Dalip Singh and Ranki for the offence under Section 394. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to four years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused Chandra Sahai was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the above judgment, Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh have filed this appeal. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that offence under Section 394, I. P. C. , has not been fully brought home against his clients and, therefore, they should be acquitted. Learned counsel for the State Government submitted that Tekchand's evidence before the trial court alone is enough to base the conviction of the appellants. The witness saw the accused from close quarters when the robbery was committed or when they were beating the inmates of the house and, therefore, there is no reason to doubt this testimony.

(3.) IN this case no other prosecution witness except Tekchand identified Pritam Singh and Dalip Singh. No stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. At the time of the identification parade Pooran Ram expressed his inability to identify the accused on the ground that the night of occurrence being dark, he could not definitely see the robbers. It is in the prosecution evidence that Tekchand's house had no electricity and that it was Tekchand, who identified the accused. There was only a dim light of a kerosene lantern. In that context, it was difficult if not impossible, to observe minutely, the features of the robbers from a distance of about 20 'pavandas' or 100 feet. The occurrence took place on August 25, 1967, the identification proceedings were conducted on December 29, 1967, that is after more than four months. Test identification held long after the event is of little value. The value of identification depends on two most important factors, viz. , that the person who identifies an accused had had no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the crime; and secondly that no mistake had been made by the witness. No importance can be attached to Identification if the test identification is conducted long after the arrest of the accused. There is every possibility of committing mistake by a witness if the identification proceedings are held after an inordinate delay. Again, in the present case the accused were put in the identification parade 11 days after their arrest. No convincing explanation is forthcoming as to why so much time was allowed to pass between the arrest of the accused and the identification proceedings.