http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  688 of 2004

PETITIONER: Sanatan Rana                                                                   

RESPONDENT: State of Jharkhand                                                          

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2005

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

H.K.SEMA,J.   

               The prosecution story unleashed by the prosecution against the  three accused on the basis of fardbeyan of P.W.13-Santoshila, widow of  deceased Rafayal Hembram recorded at Palazori Police Station, to the effect  that on 31.7.1995 at about 8.30 p.m. a dacoity took place in the house of the  complainant, followed by the murder of her husband by gunshot.  The  further case of the prosecution is that the dacoits have also committed the  murder of Sobran Hembram, a neighbour of the informant who came to the  spot on hearing the alarms.  The dacoits have committed a dacoity in the  torchlight.  The complainant further stated that there was also a burning  lantern.  It was further alleged that the dacoits were not covering their faces.   The complainant found one of the dacoits having his face resembling to that  of Sanatan Murmu.                 On the basis of the fardbeyan, a criminal case was set in motion  under Sections 396, 397, 398 and 412 I.P.C.  The Trial Court after the  conclusion of the trial convicted the three accused including the appellant- Sanatan Rana under Sections 396, 397 and 398 and recorded the conviction  and sentence for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default rigorous  imprisonment for one year on three counts.   Being aggrieved all the  convicted accused preferred separate criminal appeals.  The appellant- Sanatan Rana preferred criminal appeal no.130 of 2000.  Accused-Hemlal  Rana preferred criminal appeal no.175 of 2000 and accused-Subodhan Rana  preferred criminal appeal no.182 of 2000.  The High Court allowed the  appeal preferred by accused Hemlal Rana and dismissed the appeals  preferred by the accused Sanatan Rana (appellant herein) and accused  Subodhan Rana.  The present appeal is filed by Sanatan Rana by special  leave.                    We have heard the parties at length.                 It appears from the judgment of the Trial Court and not  disputed to, by counsel for the appellant, that the sole ground agitated by the  accused before the Trial Court was the alleged identification of the appellant  by the prosecution-witnesses namely P.W.9-Nirmala Hembrum, P.W.11- Sushila Hembrum, P.W.12-Tarshila and P.W.13-Santoshilla in the test  identification parade.  As already noticed in the fardbeyan, P.W.13 only  stated that among the dacoits who were entering inside from outside, the  complainant saw one dacoit whose appearance resembled with that of  Sanatan Murmu.    Admittedly, in the FIR none of the accused has been  named.  So this shows that none of the accused was known to the witnesses.                 The only question, therefore, that remains to be determined is  as to whether the accused has been properly identified by the prosecution- witnesses in the course of test identification parade.                 At this stage, we may dispose off one argument of counsel for  the appellant.  It is contended that the accused were known to the  prosecution-witnesses particularly to P.W.13.  This argument lacks logic.  If  this argument is accepted then P.W.13 would have mentioned all the names  in the fardbeyan itself.  The fact that test identification parade was conducted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

would clearly show that the prosecution-witnesses were not known to the  accused prior to the incident.                   The test identification parade was conducted by P.W.17- Krishna Kumar Srivastava on 14.8.1995.  Counsel for the appellant  contended that the incident had taken place on 31.7.1995 and the test  identification parade was held on 14.8.1995 after a gap of about 14 days and  no credible value could be attached to it.  This submission, in our view, is  misconceived.  The appellant Sanatan Rana was arrested/surrendered on  11.8.1995 and the test identification parade was held on 14.8.1995 i.e. after a  gap of 2 days.                 P.W.17 was a judicial Magistrate at Madhupur. In his  deposition he has stated that he has conducted the test identification parade  of the accused Subodhan Rana, Hembram and Sanatan Rana in accordance  with rules.  He further stated that P.W.13-Santoshila has identified Sanatan  Rana.  He has also stated that P.W.9-Nirmala Hembrum, P.W.11-Sushila  Hembrum and P.W.12-Tarshila have correctly identified the appellant- Sanatan Rana.                 This witness declined to be cross-examined by counsel of the  other accused namely accused-Hembram and accused-Subodhan Rana but  he was cross-examined by the counsel of the appellant-Sanatan Rana.  He  was not at all cross-examined on any material point of his statement-in- chief.    The only suggestion put to him was that the accused at the time of  identification was saying that the witnesses were known to them from before  to which he denied.  Therefore, the identification of the appellant-Sanatan  Rana by P.Ws. 9, 11,12 and 13 in the test identification parade conducted by  P.W.17 remains unimpeached.                    Counsel for the appellant has also taken us to the cross- examination of P.Ws.9, 11,12 and 13 during which a suggestion was made  to the P.Ws that they were known to the appellant from before and that the  appellant had visiting terms to the house of P.Ws and they were known to  him before, were all denied by the witnesses in categorical terms.                   Lastly, counsel for the appellant raised a legal question that an  offence under Section 396 of the IPC was not at all established against the  appellant as in the instant case the murder had taken place followed by the  dacoity whereas the Section itself deals with dacoity with murder.  This was  objected to, by the learned public prosecutor on the ground that the issue  was not raised before the Trial Court and the High Court and even before  this Court in Special leave petition.                 Be that as it may, this submission of the counsel for the  appellant is not based on evidence on record. It dehors the evidence on  record.   P.W.13 in her statement-in-chief in paragraph 2 has stated as  under:- "When my husband opened door, we saw, some persons were  beating some body.  And 3-4 persons were standing nearby.   After noticing my husband they said, "he is the teacher, 3-4  persons held him and took him at the corner.  We were pushed  inside from the door.  I fell down.  And again stood up.  Later  on they pushed all of us inside.   They assaulted (mar pit) us,  and took away, clothings, utensils and ornaments.  We were all  ladies."          Further, in paragraph 4 she stated: "My husband was killed by gunshot outside the home.  While  going to the Police Station we conveyed everything to him and  gave our statements, the officer in charge wrote down the same  to which I put my signature.  This is my signature (Exhibit 1  /4).

               Basing on the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court recorded its  finding in paragraph 11 as under:-

"There is legal and reliable evidence on the record of natural  and competent witnesses worthy of credit to substantiate the  prosecution case that the dacoity has taken place in the house of  the informant at 8.30 p.m. on 31.7.1995 and in the course of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

dacoity Rafayal Hembram the husband of the informant and  one Sobran Hembram have been done to death by the dacoits."  

This would show dacoity with murder.  Section 396 is clearly attracted.  Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the appellant has also no  substance.  In the result, there is no merit in this appeal.  Accordingly, it is  dismissed.