Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 14th December 2019
Raja vs. State by the inspector of police
Facts of the Case:
On 27.05.1999, plaintiff No.1 to 5, after having their dinner, had fallen asleep. The house of plaintiff No.1 and others is facing towards west. plaintiff No.1 was sleeping in the room situated on the northern portion of the house. plaintiff No. 3 and 4 along with the child were sleeping in the room situated on the southern portion of the house. plaintiff No.5 was sleeping on the pial situated on the veranda in front of the said house. Just opposite to the said house, on the western side, the tractor shed belonging to them is situated. The deceased Sengoda Goundar and his wife (plaintiff No.2) were sleeping in the said tractor shed.
Around 09.30 p.m., they went to the respective place to sleep. When they were fast asleep, around 01.00 a.m. on 28.05.1999, these appellants (accused 1 to 6) came to the house of the deceased in order to commit dacoity. They first went into the tractor shed and started mounting attack with deadly weapons on the deceased. The deceased cried for help which awakened plaintiff No.2. These accused indiscriminately attacked plaintiff No.2 also. She raised alarm and cried for help. On hearing the cry of the deceased and plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 who was sleeping in the room situated on the western portion of the house, opened the main door from inside and came out. On seeing him, some of the accused attacked him with deadly weapons like knife and wooden log. Since the attack was so violent, unable to bear the same and in order to avoid further blows being made, plaintiff No.1 crying for help, tried to rush inside the house. By the time, on hearing the alarm raised, plaintiff No.3 came out of the house. Some of the accused, attacked him with weapons. He sustained bleeding injuries. With a view to save himself from further attack, he rushed into the house and went into the room where his wife was sleeping. The assailants did not stop. They gave a chase, entered into the said room and indiscriminately attacked plaintiff No. 3 and his wife (plaintiff No.4) with weapons. Both sustained a number of bleeding injuries. plaintiff No. 5 who was sleeping at the Pial, awakened by the cry, rushed out. He was also attacked.
Plaintiff No.1 to 5 and the deceased were struggling for life due to the bleeding injuries. The villagers immediately rushed all of them to the Government hospital at Uthangarai.
All the victims were taken to the hospital, where Sengoda Goundarwas declared dead.
on 28.05.2009, complaint (Exhibit-P1) was made by plaintiff No.1-Sundararajan, pursuant to which FIR was registered with Singarapettai Police Station.
The investigation was commenced by plaintiff No.17-M.Chinnathambi, Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Accused No.1- 5 and 7 were arrested on 21.06.1999.
while Accused No.6-Chinnapaiyan surrendered himself before the Magistrate on 22.06.1999, who remanded him to judicial custody on the same day. On 27.06.1999 requisition was made by the Investigating Officer for conducting Test Identification Parade (TIP for short) insofar as all the arrested accused were concerned. On 28.6.1999 an application was made by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to take Accused No.6 –Chinnapaiyan in police custody.
The permission of TIP was granted by the concerned Magistrate on 29.06.1999 to hold the TIP on 01.07.1999. The police custody of Accused No.6 was also given for 3 days from 01.07.1999. Thereafter, the TIP was held on 01.07.1999, in which plaintiff No.1 to 5 identified the concerned accused. The TIP was conducted in the presence and under the supervision of PW11-Boopalan, who was then working as Sub-Judge, Rani Pettai.
After completion of investigation, the aforementioned seven accused persons were charged of having committed various offences including those punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 394, 395, 396, 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
All the witnesses, however, stated that Accused No. 7 was not present as a member of the assembly.
PW11-Boopalan, Sub-Judge in whose presence the TIP was conducted, stated that the Accused Nos.1 to 6 were made to stand for identification along with 19 other inmates from the Central Prison who were used as dummies and that plaintiff No. 1 to 5 identified Accused Nos.1 to 6. All the witnesses, however, stated that Accused No. 7 was not present as a member of the assembly.
The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, who by the judgment dated 24.07.2012 found Accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 396, 449 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also convicted under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC while Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were convicted under Section 395 IPC and all were awarded the sentence of life imprisonment along with other sentences, including payment of fine and default sentences. Accused No.7 was, however, acquitted of all the charges.
Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2012 was preferred by Accused Nos. 1 to 5 while Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2013 was preferred by Accused No.6. By its common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals.
HELD:-
The Honourable Supreme Court of India after seeing the various cases held that The facts on record thus indicate with clarity that:
(a)There was no delay in holding the test identification parade and the delay, if any, was attributable to the fact that one of the accused was in judicial custody whose presence had to be secured only after appropriate permissions from the court;
(b) It is not the case of the accused that Accused No.6 was ever shown to any of the witnesses. The test identification parade of Accused No.6 has no infirmity on any count and all the witnesses consistently identified said Accused No.6;
(c) Out of five injured witnesses, two had completely denied that either the accused or their photographs were shown to the witnesses, while other three did accept the suggestion in that behalf; and
(d) All the witnesses were injured in the transaction with number of injuries. It can, therefore, safely be stated that every one of them had adequate and proper opportunity to observe the features of each of the accused. As has been repeatedly laid down by this Court, what is important is the identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by the Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied
upon by the Court. Considering the totality of circumstances on record, the presence and participation of the Accused Nos.1 to 6, in our view, stood proved through the eyewitness account. We do not find any infirmity in the evidence of identification by plaintiff No. 1 to 5.
Since we have accepted and relied upon the eye-witness account, the subsidiary issues like recoveries and whether they were proved in a manner known to law, need no further elaboration.
Consequently, we find that the Appellants were rightly found guilty of the offences with which they were charged. Affirming their conviction and sentence, we dismiss these appeals.
Leave a Reply