AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Rakhra, J.—Appellants Brajpal r/o Nagla Sumer , his son Phool Singh also of the same village within the circle of police station Baranhal, Surendra Pal r/o Antpur Police Station Onchha and Smt. Kamla r/o Madhupuri Police Station Onchha all residents of District Mainpuri have challenged judgment and order dated 4.8.1981 passed by VI Addl. Sessions Judge Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1979 whereby the appellants Brajpal and Surendra Pal have been sentenced to life imprisonment u/s 396 IPC and Smt. Kamla and Phool Singh have been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment u/s 412 IPC.
The factual matrix of the case is that a dacoity was committed in the night of 29/30.3.1976 in village Nagla Sabha of Police Station Baranhal and houses of informant Siletey Singh, his brother Deputy Singh & Ujagar Lal etc. were looted by 12-14 dacoits who were armed with lathis, dandas and guns. In the incident injuries were caused to Rajvir Singh ,Deputy Singh, Niraj and ladies of the house including the mother of the informant. Out of them, Rajvir later died in the district hospital at Mainpuri.
It is alleged that dacoits were flashing torches while moving from one place to another in search of the property as well as for guarding their companion who were busy in the loot. On alarm being raised the informant Siletey Singh who was sleeping in his Chaupal rushed to his house. Other villagers including Ram Singh, Fateh Ram, Sardar Singh also arrived there with torches and their guns. Fires were exchanged between the witnesses and the dacoits. A lantern was lighting inside the house and the witnesses Ram Bilas and Ram Das also set ablaze a heap of "Makreda" near the place of occurrence which made good light. In the light of all these sources, witnesses recognised Atiraj of Nagla Naretha, Shaitan Singh of village Madhupuri, Kashi Ram of village Madhupuri and Brajpal of village Nagla Sabha amongst the dacoits and the rest of the dacoits could not be recognised. The dacoity continued for l''l/2 hours where after the dacoits left the village with looted property. Since informant Siletey Singh, Rajvir, Deputy Singh and Neeraj were seriously injured all of them were taken to and admitted in District Hospital Mainpuri which was about five "Kose" i.e. Ten miles from the village. They had left the village on a bullock cart after about 2 or 2''1/2 hours of the incident and reached District Hospital Mainpuri at about 7.00 a.m. In the hospital Rajvir died at about 4.00 p.m. The informant got a written report scribed from Lakhan Singh and sent the same to police station Kotwali District Mainpuri. It was mentioned in the written report (Ex. Ka. 9) that the aforesaid injured have been admitted in the hospital and details of the looted property shall be given to the police when it comes for investigation.
At police station Kotwali of District Mainpuri, Sant Ram Sharma P.W. 4 was posted as Head Moharrir. He had received an information about admission of above named injured persons in the hospital and also received written report of the informant sent through Ram Bilas on the basis of which he registered a first information report at 8.10 a.m. making its entry in the General Diary at serial No. 13 (a copy of which is Ex. Ka.2). The case was registered at police station u/s 395 IPC but subsequently on account of death of Rajvir it was converted into Section 396 IPC vide Entry No. 24 in General Diary of Police Station , a copy of which is Ex. Ka.3. Since the case related to the jurisdiction of police station Baranhal , all the relevant documents were later on handed over to S.I. Narendra Singh of the said police station.
Narendra Singh S.I. P.W. 15 of Police Station Baranhal on 29.3.1996 and 30.3.1996 was busy in the investigation of Crime No. 45 of his police station and in that connection he was present at Nagla Manu on 30.3.1976 when at 7.00 a.m. near the "Madaiya" of Kallu he received information that in the preceding night a dacoity was committed in village Nagla Sabha and that injured persons have already been shifted to Mainpuri. He deputed constable Ram Singh and Sri Ram to go to village Nagla Sabha and find out whether any other injured was left there and if so, he may also be taken to medical dispensary for treatment.
From Nagla Manu the investigating officer went to Kotwali Hamirpur and collected necessary documents relating to the crime and commenced its investigation. He went to District Hospital Mainpuri and there recorded the statement of Siletey Singh and witnesses Deputy Singh, Ujagar Lal, Niraj, Lakhan Singh ,Ram Vilas and also collected medical reports with respect to injured persons.
While he was making aforesaid investigation at Mainpuri itself, he received information that accused Brajpal Singh was seen at tehsil "Chauraha" of Mainpuri. The police officer arrested Brajpal Singh from there in this crime. From Mainpuri, investigating officer Narendra Singh proceeded to village Nagla Sabha of Police Station Baranhal and inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan (Ex. Ka. 14), collected blood stained & plain earth, ash of burnt makreda, empty cartridges fired by the dacoits and the lantern which was allegedly lighting in the house where dacoity was committed. The box from which property was looted and the torches of the witnesses which they flashed in the course of the incident were examined. Corresponding recovery memos, Supurdginama etc. were also prepared by him on the spot. He also recorded the statement of Smt. Ishwar Devi P.W. 10 wife of Rajvir and Dak Shri P.W. 11 who was the wife of Deputy Singh. Sri Ram Bilas who is brother of the informant also handed over to the investigating officer a list (Ex. Ka. 13) of the property which was looted in this dacoity.
From village Nagla Sabha S.O. Narendra Singh P.W. 15 came to Mainpuri again and managed a jeep from police station Kotwali and proceeded to village Madhupuri along with other assisting police force. From there he arrested named accused Shaitan Singh on 1.4.1976 and also raided the house of another named accused Kashi Ram in the said village. Kashi Ram was not found at his house but in the presence of his wife Smt. Kamla search of his house was taken and seven clothes i.e. one petticoat, two shawls, three blouses and one Sari (Ex. Ka. 1 to 7) which were looted property were recovered from her possession. He prepared the recovery memo and sealed the recovered articles in a packet. He also prepared the site plan Ex. Ka. 20 with respect to this place of recovery. The appellant Kamla alongwith recovered property was brought to the police station Onchha and the stolen property was kept there in a sealed packet.
On 3.4.1976 S.O. Narendra Singh P.W. 15 had arrested co-accused Maharaj Singh at Bus Station Mainpuri and was lodged Baparda at police station Kotwali. On 3.4.1976 the appellant Surendra Pal surrendered in the court and he was put to test identification on 10.5.1976.
On 24.4.1976, the said police officer acting on a confidential information made a search for Phool Singh in village Nagla Sabha. In his presence from his house investigating officer recovered a pair of silver Todiya, one gent''s dhoti, one dupatta, one lady''s dhoti and several other articles named in the recovery memo Ex. Ka.11. These articles are material Ex. 8 to 18. A site plan of this place of recovery was also prepared as Ex. Ka. 21. Accused appellant Phool Singh, is the father of appellant Brajpal and both of them lived to gather in the same house. On 25.5.1976, S.O. Narendra Singh P.W. 15 submitted a charge sheet Ex. Ka. 22 in the court.
After the case was committed to the court of sessions, six persons namely Brajpal Surendra Pal, Maharaj Singh, Smt. Kamla, Rajvir and Phool Singh faced trial. Admittedly Kashi Ram, Shaitan Singh and Atiraj had been eliminated earlier in an encounter.
Rajvir accused died during trial. Maharaj Singh has been acquitted by the trial court. The appeal was thus preferred by only four persons out of whom Phool Singh appellant has expired during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal stood abated on 17.4.2007. This leaves us with the appeal of Brajpal s/o Phool Singh, Surendra Pal and Smt. Kamla.
Against appellant Brajpal, prosecution case rests on ocular testimony as eye witnesses claimed to have seen him at the time of dacoity and he is named in the first information report. Against appellant Surendra Pal who was not named in the first information report nor was any recovery made from him, the case rests on test identification in which three witnesses namely Ram Bilas, Ram Das and Ujagar Lal are said to have identified him on 10.5.1976. Out of them Ram Bilas has already died. Against appellant Smt. Kamala, the prosecution case rests on recovery of Ex. Ka 1 to 7 alleged to be stolen property.
The defence taken by appellant Braj Pal was that he was arrested by the police from District Hospital Mainpuri and has been falsely implicated on account of his enmity with the informant and the witnesses. The appellant Surendra Pal claimed that he was not kept Baparda and the witnesses knew him from before and he has been falsely roped in on account of enmity. Similarly appellant Kamla claimed that she has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with her husband and village Sarpanch Jai Dayal is also inimical to her.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in all. Out of them Siletey Singh P.W. 1 Ujagar Lal P.W. 2 and Ram Das P.W. 3 are the witnesses of fact and have deposed before the court that a dacoity was in fact committed and the house of the informant as well as Deputy Singh and Ujagar Lal were looted. They have also stated about the sources of light as claimed by the prosecution and mentioned that they had recognised Braj Pal, Kashi Ram, Shaitan Singh and Atiraj amongst the dacoits. Ujagar Lal and Ram Das further stated that they had correctly identified appellant Surendra Pal in his test identification parade and they had not known him from before nor did they get any opportunity to see him between the date of incident and the date of test identification.
Sant Ram Sharma P.W. 4 had registered the case at Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri on the written report of informant at 8.10 a.m. and later on altered the case from Section 395 to Section 396 IPC on receipt of the information about death of one of the injured namely Rajvir. He had also handed over relevant papers of this Crime to S.O. Narendra Singh of Police Station Baranhal. S.I. Suresh Chandra Pandey P.W. 5 was the Head Moharrir at Police Station Baranhal on 30.3.1976 and on receipt of information from police station Kotwali Mainpuri he had made entry of this crime in General Diary of Police Station Baranhal, a copy of which is Ex. Ka.5 and Ex. Ka.6. This witness also proved entry of appellant Phool Singh and of recovered stolen property from him at Police station on 24.4.1976 by S.O. Narendra Singh.
Shambhoo Dayal P.W. 6 is a formal witness who on 13.4.1976 carried sealed pockets of case property from police station Onchha to Police Station Baranhal. Sri R.D. Dixit P.W. 7 was station officer at Police Station Onchha and on 1.4.1976 had accompanied Narendra Singh Chauhan S.O. Baranhal to make a search of the house of accused Kashi Ram at 8.30 a.m. The said accused could not be found but in the presence of his wife Smt. Kamla, house was searched and material Ex. Ka. 1 to 7 clothes were recovered and sealed in a packet and recovery memo Ex. Ka. 10 was prepared. Girind Singh P.W. 8 is a public witness who accompanied the police party which had gone to the house of the deceased appellant Phool Singh and had recovered some alleged looted property from his house. In all twenty two articles were recovered and the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 11 was prepared.
M.L. Sharma, P.W. 9 is Deputy Collector who on 10.5.1976 conducted test identification of appellant Surendra Pal Singh and non-appellant Maharaj Singh. He proved test identification memo Ex. Ka. 12 and also disclosed precautions which he had taken in order to ensure proper test identification.
Smt. Ishwar Devi P.W. 10 is wife of Rajvir Singh (Victim) and is also a witness of fact. She claims that she had identified Braj Pal amongst dacoits. In the court she identified material Ex.8 to 11 which were allegedly recovered from deceased appellant Phool Singh. Similarly other articles material Ex. 12 to 18 were also identified by her. Smt. Dakh Shri P.W. 11 is the wife of Deputy Singh and is also an eye witness and claimed that she had recognised Brajpal of her village amongst the dacoits. She also identified material Ex. 12 to 18 and Ex. 8 to 11. She also identified in the court material Ex. 1 to 7 which was allegedly recovered from the appellant Smt. Kamla.
Constable Ranvir Singh P.W. 12 was Court Moharrir in the court of Munsif in whose Court on 3.4.1976 Surendra Pal appellant surrendered. This witness has deposed that Surendra Pal surrendered Baparda and was sent to Hawalat Baparda.
Netra Pal Singh P.W. 13 and Vijay Pal Singh P.W. 14 both resident of Madhupuri of Police Station Onchha are allegedly witness of recovery from Kamla but in the court they declined to support the prosecution and were declared hostile.
Lastly Narendra Singh S.O. Police Station Baranhal P.W. 15 is the investigating officer who had received information about this crime on 30.3.1976 in village Nagla Manu where he was investigating some other crime. From there he went to police station Kotwali Mainpuri, collected necessary papers and commenced investigation of the crime recorded statement of informant and other witnesses in the hospital and arrested appellant Brajpal Singh from tehsil Chauraha at Mainpuri. As stated earlier he also visited place of occurrence prepared site plan, recovered blood stained plain earth, empty shells of the cartridges and examined torches and lantern etc. which were alleged to be source of light and also ash from place where Makreda was set ablaze. He had also collected list of stolen property from Ram Bilas ; affected arrest of accused Shaitan Singh and made recovery from the possession of appellant Smt. Kamla and arrested accused Maharaj Singh on 3.4.1976. On 24.4.1976 he searched the house of deceased appellant Phool Singh and recovered some looted property from his possession. After completion of the investigation he has submitted charge sheet.
No evidence has been led by the accused persons in the defence.
We have heard Sri Akhilesh Singh learned Counsel for the appellants and Dr. Suman Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and have gone through entire evidence adduced in the trial.
Learned Counsel for the appellants did not dispute the fact that dacoity had taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution but his argument is that the present appellants were not involved in the dacoity nor any stolen property had been recovered from them and that they have been falsely implicated by the informant on account of enmity and also by the police in unjustified manner.
The factum of dacoity has been admitted by the trial court and the trial court has also admitted the fact that there was sufficient light on the spot as claimed by the prosecution it also held that the witnesses had opportunity to see the faces of the culprits and recovery of looted property was also believed. The trial court did not find any fault in test identification.
Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that Brajpal appellant is the resident of same village. He has his house only at the distance of 10 to 12 paces from the house of the informant. He claims enmity with the informant. He is also father of Phool Singh (since deceased) and was falsely implicated. He further argued that Brajpal is financially well off and had no criminal antecedents and therefore, there was absolutely no chance of his doing such an act.
With regard to appellant Smt. Kamla it has been argued that she is wife of accused Kashi Ram who was named in the first information report and has been later on killed in police encounter. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the first information report was ante-timed and names of different persons were given as accused at the instance of the police. It was contended that material Ex. Ka. 1 to 7 clothes alleged to have been recovered from Smt. Kamla are the articles of general description and such articles can easily be available in the market. Public witnesses allegedly associated with the recovery from Kamla have not supported aforesaid search and recovery. Further it has been argued that identification memo of material Ex. Ka 1 to 7 could not be placed before the trial court and there is nothing on record to show if any of these articles were identified by Dakh Shri P.W. 11 and Ranvir Singh P.W. 12 in the test identification.
With regard to appellant Surendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel has argued that this appellant has brown eyes and no precaution was taken by the Magistrate in concealing this characteristic of the eye and the person with normal eyes were made to participate in the test identification which helped the witnesses to single out Surendra Pal Singh from the parade. Further it has been argued that he had surrendered on 3.4.1976 and test identification parade was held on 10.5.1976 and no evidence has been led to explain the delay or to establish the fact that there was no occasion for the witness to see his face after the incident till the test identification parade was held nor even when he was brought before the Magistrate on expiry of fifteen days for extension of the remand.
Learned AGA on the other hand argued that the first information report was promptly lodged and Brajpal appellant was named therein while there was no enmity to falsely implicate him. With regard to Smt. Kamala the argument of learned AGA is that looted property recovered from her has been rightly identified by Smt. Ishwar Devi P.W. 10 and Smt. Dakh Shri P.W. 11 and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Similarly with regard to Surendra Pal Singh, learned AGA contended that there are three good identifying witnesses who had identified him in the test identification at jail and two such witnesses had also deposed and identified him before the trial court and M.L. Sharma P.W. 9 the Magistrate who conducted the test identification had taken full precaution by requiring all the participants in the test identification parade to keep their eyes closed. The specific identifying marks were concealed.
We have examined the evidence on record in the light of above submission and we shall discuss the case of each of the appellant one by one.
First of all let us take the case of appellant Brajpal who is resident of village Nagla Sabha itself and was named in the first information report. His father Phool Singh was also later made accused on the basis of recovery made from him but since he has died his appeal stood abated.
Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer P.W. 15 admitted that Brajpal & Phool Singh are son and father having a joint living in the village. Smt. Dakh Shri P.W. 11 is wife of Deputy Singh in whose house dacoity was committed. Her testimony in trial brings entire prosecution evidence against this appellant at naught. As stated earlier, the prosecution case is that since Rajvir and other injured person along with informant had received serious injuries they left their village about two hours after the dacoity and reached Mainpuri District Hospital on a bullock at about 7.00 a.m. covering a distance of about ten miles. The police station was hardly 30 to 40 paces away from the hospital but the informant could not reach there to lodge a report and sent written report from the hospital itself through Ram Bilas .The informant also stated that the house of Brajpal is only 10 to 12 paces towards the north of his house and after crossing passage in between. This means that appellant Brajpal and his father were next door neighbour. Dakh Shri P.W. 11 wife of Deputy Singh stated in her cross examination that victim Rajvir was shifted to hospital after one hour of the incident by informant Siletey Singh as well as by other including appellant Phool Singh and his son Rameshwar in our opinion the very fact that Phool Singh, one of the appellant was accompanying the injured victim from village to District Hospital, rules out the possibility of his or his family members being involved in this dacoity. It appears to us that the claim of appellant Brajpal that he was arrested by investigating officer Narendra Singh P.W. 15 from hospital is correct. It is highly improbable that after committing dacoity in the night, appellant Brajpal would be roaming near Tehsil i at Mainpuri knowing well that the injured persons and their family members have gone to hospital for treatment and that too when according to prosecution story Brajpal had participated in the dacoity without concealing his identity by covering his face with any mask.
Further the deposition of the prosecution witness in trial shows that Brajpal and his father Phool Singh were not indigent persons but were financially sound. Siletey Singh P.W. 1 has admitted that the appellant Phool Singh had 30-40 bighas of agricultural land and was also having a tube well and flour mill. A person of such stature would not commit a dacoity and that too in the house of his neighbour and also without concealing his identity. The prosecution has shown recovery of pair of Todia weighing about three tola one chained silver Todia having some gold coating weighing three tola from Phool Singh. Besides this, other articles which were allegedly recovered from him were one male Dhoti, one Dupatta, three female Dhoti, one Sari, one bed sheet. The estimated value of these articles in our opinion is too small to incite a person of the stature of Phool Singh to commit dacoity in the house of his neighbour for such articles.
The first information report in the matter also appears to us to be ante-timed. Firstly if Brajpal Kashi Ram, Shaitan and Atiraj had been recognised amongst the dacoits and when police station was about 30-40 paces away from district hospital Mainpuri, it is not believable that the informant would not himself immediately proceed to police station to lodge a report. In the ordinary course, the informant and his companions must have taken appellant Phool Singh (deceased) to the Police Station to complain that his son Brajpal was involved in the dacoity. Secondly Sant Ram P.W. 4, Head Moharrir of Police Station Kotwali says that on 30.3.76 at 7:05 hours information had been received that the injured persons are at Hospital and at 8.10 a.m. first information report was registered when Ram Biias lodged a written report at the police station. The fact that a written report had been prepared by 8:10 a.m. is itself very doubtful because informant Siletey Singh P.W. 1 has admitted in the cross examining that Rajvir had died in the hospital around 4.00 p.m. and written report was scribed by Lakhan Singh on his dictation about one hour before Rajvir died. This means that the written report itself came into existence at 3.00 p.m. and therefore, it could not have been lodged at 8:10 a.m. on the same day.
In fact, it appears that thumb impression of informant Siletey Singh P.W. 1 was obtained and written report was prepared subsequently and was ante-timed at the police station. In this regard Siletey Singh P.W. 1 also says that written report which he had signed had not been shown to him and he does not know at what time it was registered at the police station.
Ram Bilas who had given written report of Siletey Singh at Police Station has died and therefore, could not be produced but Lakhan could have been produced for dispelling the suspicion raised in this regard. This has not been done nor is there any explanation for it.
Smt. Ishwar Devi P.W. 10, wife of Rajvir Singh stated that in the night of dacoity itself police arrived at their house at about 2.00 a.m. She has further contradicted the prosecution version by saying that Ram Vilas had given list of stolen property in the night of dacoity itself to the police on the spot and signatures of this witness as well as Netra Pyari and Dakh Shri was also obtained on the list. The claim of investigating officer that on 30.3.1976 during investigation after he had recorded statement of injured persons at Mainpuri hospital, when he went to village Nagla Sabha, Ram Bilas gave him list of looted property is therefore, a concocted fact.
We are therefore, of the opinion that prosecution evidence against appellant Brajpal is wholly unbelievable, fabricated and fails to inspire confidence.
Now taking up the case of appellant Kamla Devi it may be mentioned here that material Ex. 1 to 17 alleged to have been recovered from her possession are clothes which can be found in any body''s house. In view of the fact that list of looted property was not given in the first information report itself and the evidence relating to its coming into existence is contradictory, it cannot be said with certainty that these articles were in fact stolen property. It is relevant to note that the two recovery witnesses namely Netrapal Singh P.W. 13 and Vijai Singh P.W. 14 have failed to support the prosecution and have stated that no recovery was made from Smt. Kamla in their presence. The investing officer Narendra Singh P.W. 15 slated that on 1.4.1976 when he raided the house of accused Kashi Ram , the husband of appellant Kamla , only this witness was found at the house and her husband was not there. In the recovery memo Ex.Ka. 10 no time of recovery is given. There is no mention in the diary that a copy of recovery memo was given to Smt. Kamla Devi nor are there details of the room from where property was recovered. The persons who identified the box from which property was recovered are also not mentioned in the recovery memo. R.D. Dixit P.W. 7 the witness of recovery says that when the appellant Kamla Devi was informed that a search of her house is to be taken, she simply replied that they may do so. There is no evidence that she tried to run away from the place of occurrence.
It is true that in the trial court Ishwar Devi P.W. 10 and Dakh Shri P.W. 11 identified these articles as their property but the court room proceedings cannot be equated with test identification parade. When the property is taken out of a sealed packet in the court as a property recovered from a particular accused, it is very easy for the witness to affirm that it was a stolen property belonging to them. Veracity of their deposition cannot be checked effectively. It is therefore, necessary that a test identification parade should be held and the performance of the witness in the said parade can be taken into consideration because there the witness has to pick up one article out of eight or ten similar articles placed together for test identification. In this case it appears that test identification of the property recovered from Kamla was held but no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show the results of the said test identification nor any memo of such test was produced before the trial court.
We are therefore, of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against Kamla Devi was also highly unsatisfactory, unbelievable and unreliable.
Lastly let us consider the case of appellant Surendra Pal against whom prosecution case rests on test identification which was held on 10.5.1976. In Aiyub v. State AIR 2002 (SC )1992 it was held that test identification parade is not substantive piece of evidence. It is only for the satisfaction of the prosecution that the investigation was going in right direction. In Suraj Pal v. State 1995 SCC 7313 Apex Court observed that substantive evidence of identifying witness is his evidence given in court. In cases where accused person is not known to the witnesses from before, a test identification of the accused at the earliest is of vital importance with a view to avoid chance of his memory fading away by the time he is examined in the court after some lapse of time.
Thus when the prosecution relies upon the test identification against accused, it has to show that test was held at the earliest and there was no unnecessary delay. It must also establish that witnesses had not known the accused from before and that they had not seen nor did they have any opportunity of seeing the accused between the date of test identification and the date of occurrence.
In the case of Satrughana Versus State 1994 SCC 1424 an unexplained delay of l''l/2 months in holding test identification parade without proper explanation was found to have vitiated the result of test identification. The prosecution in that case had not led evidence that while taking the accused to and producing him before the court for remand the identity of the accused was not revealed and the witnesses had at no earlier stage revealed any identifying feature. The court found that exclusive reliance could not be placed on such identification. The conviction of the accused was set aside.
Now let us examine the statement of Ranvir Singh P.W. 12 who has been examined by the prosecution. He stated that he was Court Moharrir in the court of Munsif Magistrate Mainpuri where appellant Surendra Pal surrendered and was remanded to judicial custody. He deposed that the appellant came Baparda and was sent to Hawalat Baparda. The witness could not affirm that in Hawalat also the appellant remained Baparda and there was no opportunity to any one to see his face. No curtain or screen was placed on the door of the Hawalat in order to obstruct the view inside.
Clearly this appellant was taken into custody on 3.4.1976 and and his test identification was held on 10.5.1976 . He must have been brought out from jail and produced before the Magistrate before or on the expiry of fifteen days, for further remand. No evidence has been led to show that the appellant was kept Baparda in jail or there was any endorsement on his custody warrant that he has to be kept Baparda. There is no evidence on record to show that he was taken out from Jail Baparda for the purpose of remand and was produced before the Magistrate and was taken back to Jail Baparda without giving any opportunity to the witnesses to see his face in view of the aforesaid circumstances no value can be attached to test identification being relied upon by the prosecution.
The Magistrate conducting test identification parade Sri M.L. Sharma P.W. 9 says that in order to prevent undue advaniage to the witnesses, other under trial persons participating in the parade were directed to keep their eyes closed so that brown eyes of the appellant do not single him out. The witnesses of the identification i.e. Ujagar P.W. 2 and Ram Das P.W. 3 have stated that in the test identification parade some of the under trial prisoners had closed their eyes but some kept them open. Thus sufficient precaution was not taken by the Magistrate in order to ensure fair test identification. We are therefore, of the opinion that Surendra Pal appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence.
In view of the discussions made above, we find that the prosecution evidence against all three appellants is wholly unsatisfactory, unreliable and contradictory.
We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants as well as sentences passed on them by the trial court. They are on bail. Their personal surety bonds are discharged. They need not surrender.
Let a certified copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court.