http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAMANAND RAMNATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1996

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)     3        1996 SCALE  (3)429

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.      The appellant, alongwith seven others, was tried in the Court of  the Additional  Sessions Judge,  Bilaspur  for  an offence under  Section 395  IPC. All  of them were convicted for the above offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven  years each.  In appeal  the High Court upheld the conviction of  seven of  them, including  the appellant, but reduced their  sentence to  rigorous imprisonment  for three years each.  The  conviction  of  the  eighth  accused  was, however, altered  to one  under Section  411 IPC.  The above order is  under challenge  in this appeal at the instance of the appellant only.      The prosecution  case, so  far as  it is required to be stated for  disposal of this appeal, is that in the night of August 5,  1981 the accused persons committed dacoity in the house of  Nandram (P.W.1)  of  village  Tatakasa  under  the jurisdiction  of   Police  Station   Kunda  and   took  away ornaments, clothes,  watch  and  cash.  A    report  of  the incident was  lodged by  Nandram on the following morning at 4.30 A.M.  whereupon a case was registered under Section 395 IPC. In  course  of  the  investigation  the  appellant  was arrested  on   August  29,   1981  and   placed  in  a  test identification parade  wherein he  was identified  by  three witnesses, including  Nandram. Besides  some stolen articles were seized  from his possession and some recovered pursuant to his  statement. On completion of investigation the police submitted  chargesheet  and  in  due  course  the  case  was committed to the Court of Session.      The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him  and his  contention was  that  he  was  falsely implicated at  the instance of the police authorities as, as a journalist  he had  written many  an article  about police atrocities for which they bore a grudge against him.      The trial  Court held,  relying upon  the  evidence  of Nandram and two other members of his family, namely, Sadaram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

(P.W.3) and Puhupram (P.W.5) that a dacoity was committed in the manner  alleged by the prosecution. The trial Court also relied upon  their evidence  regarding identification of the appellant as  one of  the dacoits  as it was corroborated by their earlier  identification  in  the  test  identification parade held  by the  Naib Tehsildar  (P.W.4).  The  evidence regarding recovery of some of the stolen properties form the appellant and  pursuant to his statement from elsewhere also found  favour   with  the   trial  court.   The  appellant’s contention of  his false  implication was  rejected  by  the trial Court  on the  ground that even if it was assumed that the police  had animus against him, there was not an iota of evidence to  indicate that  any  of  the  above  three  eye- witnesses had  any reason  to join  hands with the police to falsely implicate him. The High Court concurred with all the above findings  of the trial Court and upheld the conviction of the appellant.      On careful perusal of the judgments of both the learned Courts below  in the  light of  the evidence  adduced during trial we  find that  the conclusions drawn by them are based on proper  appreciation of  the evidence.  That  necessarily means that those findings  merit no disturbance.      It was,  however, contended  on behalf of the appellant that the learned Courts below failed to notice that the test identification parade was not held at the earliest available opportunity.  We  do  not  find  any  a  substance  in  this contention for  the record  shows  that  the  appellant  was arrested on 29.8.1981 and the test identification parade was held on  14.9.1981. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was any  unusual delay  in holding  the test  identification parade. The above contention was also raised before the High Court which  repelled it  with the  following finding - with which we entirely agree:      "In the  instant case, the incident      had   taken    place   at   Village      Tatakasa.  The  Naib-Tehsildar  was      working at  Mungali and  had to  be      sent to  District Jail  at Bilaspur      for  holding   the   identification      parade.  Even  the  witnesses  were      required to  travel that  distance.      An application  made  to  the  Sub-      Divisional Magistrate would entitle      the Naib  Tehsildar to  move out of      his head-quarters  on duty and that      appears to  be the  reason why this      was done. Considering that all this      has happened  within  13  days,  it      does not  appear that  any abnormal      delay has been caused."      It was  also contended  that the evidence regarding the alleged recovery  of  stolen  articles  from  the  appellant and/or on  his showing was wholly unreliable. This aspect of the matter  need not detain us for the evidence of the three eye-witnesses conclusively proves that the appellant was one of the dacoits.      For the  foregoing discussion  no interference with the conviction of the appellant is called for. Coming now to the question of  sentence we  can only  say that  it errs on the side of  leniency. The  appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant, who  is on  bail, will  now surrender to his bail bonds to serve out his sentence.