Penal Code, 1860, Section 397 read with Section 395– Dacoity – Conviction set aside – Appreciation of evidence – Conviction of the appellant basically based on the deposition ofPW-1, who was working as a security guard and was sitting in a chair in front of the said room – He has also identified accused No.2- appellant and accused no.3- in the Court -He admitted that police had shown him these two people and as such, he has identified them – PW-8, who is the Investigating Officer (IO),has also admitted that PW-1 identified the accused persons by seeing them at the police station – He has further admitted that no identification parade was conducted –Held that the identification of the appellant by PW-1 is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted – PW-1 clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people – In the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt – Other circumstance that the Courts relied for resting the order of conviction is with regard to the recovery of an iron rod – Aniron rod is an article which could be found anywhere – It is not the case of the prosecution that any stolen article was recovered from the appellant – Judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant and that of the High Court affirming the same liable to be quashed and set aside – The appellant acquitted of all the charges-charged with – Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. (Para 5 to 10)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 170 SC
[2024 INSC 207]
Jafar Vs. State Of Kerala
Criminal Appeal No. 1607 OF 2009-Decided on 15-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-170-SC.pdf
