1981 JTR(SC) 154
1982 3 SCC 368 ; 1983 SCC(Cri) 4901 ; 1983 SCC(Cri) 5101 ; 1981 KHC 2418
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Baharul Islam : V.D.Tulzapurkar
Soni
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 252 of 1981
Date of Decision : 3/6/81
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.9
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.395
Constitution of India,1950 - \Offence of dacoity - Satisfied that conviction - Appellant for offence of dacoity is difficult to sustain - Conviction rests purely upon his identification by five witnesses but it cannot be forgotten that identification parade itself was held after a lapse of days from dare of arrest of appellant – Held, This delay in holding identification parade throws a doubt on genuineness thereof apart from fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time witnesses would be remembering racial expressions of the appellant - If this evidence cannot be relied upon there is no other evidence which Can sustain the Conviction of appellant – Appeal allowed
Constitution of India,1950 - \Offence of dacoity - Satisfied that conviction - Appellant for offence of dacoity is difficult to sustain - Conviction rests purely upon his identification by five witnesses but it cannot be forgotten that identification parade itself was held after a lapse of days from dare of arrest of appellant – Held, This delay in holding identification parade throws a doubt on genuineness thereof apart from fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time witnesses would be remembering racial expressions of the appellant - If this evidence cannot be relied upon there is no other evidence which Can sustain the Conviction of appellant – Appeal allowed
V.D.Tulzapurkar, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) AFTER hearing counsel on either side we are satisfied that the conciction of the appellant for the offence of dacoity is difficult to sustain. The conviction rests purely upon his identification by five witnesse, Smt. Koori Pritam Singh, Kewal, Chaitoo and Sinru, but it cannot be forgotten that the identification parade itself was held after a lapse of 42 days from the dare of the arrest of the appellant. This delay in holding the identification parade throws a doubt on the genuineness thereof apart from the fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a. long time the witnesses would be remembering the racial expressions of the appellant. If this evidence cannot be relied upon there is no other evidence which Can sustain the Conviction of the appellant. We therefore allow the appeal and acquit the appellant.