Madras High Court
Arumugam vs State Of on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.A.No.525 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.525 of 2019
1.Arumugam
2.Sivakumar ... Appellants/ A1 & A2
v.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Kottapatti Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.217 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, against the conviction of the appellants/accused and sentence in
S.C.No.107 of 2016 dated 09.07.2019, on the file of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed in judgment dated 09.07.2019 and acquit the appellant/sole
accused.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Parthiban
for Mr.Ilaya Perumal (for A1)
Mr.V.Parthiban
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.525 of 2019
for Mr.V.Raja Mohan (for A2)
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, vide judgment
dated 09.07.2019 in S.C.No.107 of 2016, on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
2.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused/appellants and a
juvenile accused are known to each other; that the accused conspired to
commit robbery in the house of the deceased after murdering him; that
pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 05.11.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., the
accused took the juvenile accused from Aroor Bus Stand and got down at
T-Andiyur Bus Stand and went to the house of the deceased at about 11.00
p.m. on the same day; that they trespassed into the house; A1 sat on the leg
of the deceased and smothered him with the pillow; that the juvenile
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused closed the face of PW2-wife of the deceased with a bed sheet, and
he took the earring of PW2; and that thereafter, he attacked PW2 with the
safety pin and also took away the cell phones of the deceased and PW2,
besides a torch light in the house.
(ii) PW1, son of the deceased, who was residing at Salem, on coming
to know that his father was done to death by the robbers and had taken a
gold earring of his mother, came to the house at about 2.45 a.m., on
06.11.2014 and took his mother to the hospital and thereafter, lodged a
complaint [Ex.P1] at about 7.00 a.m., on 06.11.2014. PW13 the Sub
Inspector of Police registered the FIR [Ex.P.10] in Cr.No.217 of 2014 for
the offences under Sections 302, 396 and 307 of the IPC.
(iii) PW18, the investigating officer, took up the investigation, went
to the scene of the occurrence on 06.11.2014 at 8.00 a.m., and prepared the
Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P25] . He also sought
the assistance of the photographer and the sniffer dog squad. He took the
assistance of the fingerprint expert and found four chance prints in the door
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the house and in the cup board [almirah]. He seized the pillow (M.O.5)
under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3]. He conducted an inquest over the dead
body of the deceased between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the presence of the panchayathars and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P19].
Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem, which was
conducted by PW14, who had issued Ex.P12-Postmortem certificate. He
took steps to compare the chance fingerprints taken at the scene of the
occurrence with the fingerprints of the suspects available at the police
station. However, the fingerprints did not tally with that of any of the
suspects.
(iv) On 12.11.2014, PW18 obtained the wound certificate of PW2 and
examined the doctor, who treated her. On 14.11.2014, on the confession
given by PW7, he arrested A1 and on his confession, he learnt that A2 and
the juvenile accused were also involved in the occurrence. On the
confession of A1, he seized a gold earring with a white stone weighing 6
grams, from A1 at Keezh Chengapadu Bus Stand. Thereafter, he sent the
fingerprints taken at the time of arrest to the fingerprint expert for
comparison. After recording the statements of other witnesses and the
fingerprint expert, he altered the offence as under Sections 120(B), 448,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
392, 392 r/w 397, 302 and 307 r/w 109 of the IPC. The alteration report is
marked as Ex.P26. On completion of investigation, he filed the final report
against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aroor
(v) On the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C., were complied with, and was committed to the Court of Session in
S.C.No.107 of 2016 and made over to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dharmapuri, for trial. The trial Court framed charges for the
offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 392, 448, 302 and 392 of the IPC
against the appellants, and when questioned, the appellants pleaded 'not
guilty'.
(vi) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.18, marked 27 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P27 and marked 9
material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.9. When the appellants were questioned,
u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them,
they denied the same. The appellants neither examined any witness nor
marked any document on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable
doubt and held the appellants guilty of the offences under Section 120(B)
r/w 392, 302, 448 and 392 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced as
follows:
Accused No. Offence under Sentence imposed
Each of them to undergo 2 years RI and to
120(B) r/w 392 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo
RI for three months.
Each of them to undergo life imprisonment
302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to
undergo RI for one year.
A1 and A2
Each of them to undergo 1 year RI and to pay
448 IPC a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for
three months.
Each of them to undergo 10 years RI and to
392 IPC pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo
SI for 6 months.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Hence, the accused have preferred the appeal challenging the said
conviction and sentence.
3. Heard, Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent/State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though PW2
had identified A1 in the Court, her deposition cannot be relied upon; that no
Test Identification Parade was conducted and PW2 had not identified the
jewels during the investigation; that PW1 the complainant had not given the
identification marks of the jewels and hence, the identification of the jewels
by PW2 in Court, cannot be relied upon; that the evidence of the fingerprint
expert, is of no use to the prosecution, as the investigating officer admitted
that the records to show that the specimen fingerprint were sent to the
fingerprint expert was not available in his file; that the investigating officer
had admitted that he was unable to say as to when the specimen fingerprints
were sent to the expert; that the arrest and recovery also cannot be believed,
as even according to the prosecution, A1 was available for interrogation
throughout. He therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that
the evidence of PW2 is cogent and convincing, her evidence is natural and
there is no exaggeration in her version; that therefore, the absence of Test
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Identification Parade by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case;
that the identification of jewels by PW2 and the recovery made on the
confession of A1, establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt;
and that the chance fingerprints lifted at the occurrence tallied with the
fingerprints of A1 and A2 as per the reports [Ex.P16 to Ex.P18] of the
officer [PW17] belonging to the District Fingerprint Bureau, District Police
office, Dharmapuri. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have
perused all the relevant records.
7. (i) As stated earlier, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. PW1
is the son of the deceased, the de facto complainant and is a hearsay
witness. PW2 is the injured eyewitness and the wife of the deceased, whose
earring was stolen by the appellants; PW3 is the brother of PW1 and
corroborated his version; PW4 is the relative of PW2 and a hearsay witness;
PW5 and PW6 are the relatives of PW2 and witnesses in the inquest
conduct by the Investigating officer; PW7 is another relative of PW2 and a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hearsay witness; PW8 is the witness to the observation Mahazar and was
related to the deceased; PW9 is the Village Administrative Officer, who
was a witness to the confession and recovery from A1; PW10 is the
photographer; PW11 and PW12 are Constables who assisted the
investigating officer; PW13 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered
the FIR; PW14 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. PW15 is the
constable in the Sniffer Dog Squad and issued the report [Ex.P13]; PW16 is
the Doctor, who treated PW2 and made entries in the Accident Register
[Ex.P14]; PW17 is the officer in the Single Digit Fingerprint Bureau of
Dharmapuri, who had compared the chance fingerprints and the specimen
fingerprints said to have been taken from the appellants; and PW18 is the
Investigating Officer.
(ii) The prosecution had examined the doctor [PW14], who had
conducted postmortem and in his report, Ex.P12, he had opined that the
deceased died due to asphyxia. The postmortem report [Ex.P12] along with
the other evidence of PW2, reveals that the deceased suffered homicidal
death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. However, as regards the involvement of the accused, it is seen that
the prosecution case primarily rests on the evidence of PW2, the recovery of
jewel-earring on A1's confession and on the reports of the fingerprint officer
[Ex.P16 to Ex.P18].
9. (i) In the complaint [Ex.P1], it is seen that PW1 had stated that a
gold earring weighing 6 grams was taken from PW2. The description of the
earring was not stated in the complaint. However, PW2 had identified the
earring [M.O.1] shown to her during her deposition. She had also identified
the mobile phones [M.O.2 and M.O.3] seized from the juvenile accused.
Further, she had identified A1 and stated that he had smothered the
deceased with the pillow and the other accused-A2, as the person who
caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased. However, we find that
no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Admittedly, the
accused/appellants were not known to PW2.
(ii) When a specific question was put by the learned trial Judge to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigating officer as to why no Test Identification Parade was conducted,
the investigating officer stated that he did not conduct the Test
Identification Parade since PW2 had seen all the accused when he took the
accused for interrogation to the house of the deceased. The relevant
portion reads as follows:
“ehd; ,t;tHf;fpy; milahs mzptFg;g[ Vd;
elj;jtpy;iy vd;W nfl;lhy; M$u; vjphpfs; kw;Wk; ,stiu
ifJ bra;J mtu;fs; TwpathW rk;gt ,lkhd brd;dpag;gd;
tPl;ow;F miHj;J tUk;nghJ m';F vjpu; ghuhj tpjkhf
Fg;gk;khs; ,Ue;jhu; mtu; kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ug;ghu; vd ehd;
epidj;J m';F nghd neuj;jpy; Fg;gk;khs; vjphpfis ghu;j;j
fhuzj;jpdhy; milahs mzptFg;g[ elj;Jk; eltof;iffis
ehd; nkw;bfhs;stpy;iy/”
This is hardly any explanation for not conducting the Test Identification
Parade. The answer only makes the case of the prosecution worse. If PW2
had already seen the accused at her house during investigation, her
identification in Court also becomes unreliable.
10. (i) The next evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the arrest
and recovery of jewels on the confession of A1. PW9 is a VAO and a
witness to the arrest and confession. There is nothing on record to indicate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as to how the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the
appellants were involved in the occurrence. PW7 had informed the police
that A1 alone did not attend the funeral of the deceased and therefore, they
had suspected the involvement of A1. PW7 had also stated that when the
police enquired Arumugam-A1 as to whether any outsider had visited the
village, on the fateful night, he replied in the negative and thereafter, A1
went missing. In our view, this would hardly be of any circumstance to
suspect the involvement of A1.
(ii) Be that as it may, it is seen from the evidence of PW7 that A1 was
available for interrogation by the police. PW7 would state that after the
arrest, the Inspector had asked the accused something and A1 handed over
the earring. The Mahazar evidencing seizure of the earring i.e., Ex.P5,
shows that an earring with white stone weighing 6 grams, was seized behind
Keezh Chengapadu Bus Stand. No steps were taken by the investigating
officer after the seizure to confirm from PW2, as to whether it belonged to
her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) In some cases, relating to robbery or murder for gain, the
victim/relative would be able to give the distinct identifying features of the
object, which is the subject matter of the offence, even while lodging the
complaint. For instance, the victim would be able to give the details
confirming the identity of a jewel or article or the exact amount of cash
stolen. In such cases, it would be easy for the investigating officer to
compare the jewels or articles seized with the description given by the
victim. However, very often the victims would not be able to give the
specific details confirming the identity of the jewels or articles concerned.
In such cases, the investigating officer, on recovery of the jewels or articles,
has to confirm if the articles or jewels recovered, belonged to the victim. If
the jewels/articles are shown to the victim at the police station, there is no
guarantee that the victim is telling the truth.
(iv) In the case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma Vs. State of
Bombay reported in (1954) 2 SCC 516, the identification of a property by
an identifier to a Police Officer during the course of investigation, was held
to be inadmissible in evidence, since such identification would attract
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 162 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
“21. If this background is kept in view it is clear that the
process of identification by the identifying witnesses involves the
statement by the identifying witnesses that the particular
properties identified were the subject-matter of the offence or the
persons identified were concerned in the offence. This statement
may be express or implied. The identifier may point out by his
finger or touch the property or the person identified, may either
nod his head or give his assent in answer to a question addressed
to him in that behalf or may make signs or gestures which are
tantamount to saying that the particular property identified was
the subject-matter of the offence or the person identified was
concerned in the offence. All these statements express or implied
including the signs and gestures would amount to a
communication of the fact of identification by the identifier to
another person.
22. The distinction therefore which has been made by the
Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts between the mental act
of identification and the communication thereof by the identifier
to another person is quite logical and such communications are
tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police
officer in the course of investigation and come within the ban of
Section 162. The physical fact of identification has thus no
separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very
process of identification and insofar as a police officer seeks to
prove the fact of such identification such evidence of his would
attract the operation of Section 162 and would be inadmissible in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence, the only exception being the evidence sought to be
given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of
identification which he would be entitled to give by way of
corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial. We
therefore approve of the view taken by the Calcutta and the
Allahabad High Courts in preference to the view taken by the
Madras High Court and the Judicial Commissioner's Court at
Nagpur.”
(emphasis supplied)
Following Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma's case (supra), we had also, in
the case of Kaleel Rahman @ Rahman @ Ragu Vs. Inspector of Police,
Orleanpet Police Station passed in Crl.A.No.90 of 2019, dated 16.07.2024,
had found the identification of certain gold jeweleries made before the
Investigating Officer, as impermissible in law.
(v) When identification of jewels to a Police Officer and not before a
Court would be impermissible, the best way to ascertain whether the jewel
or articles seized belonged to the victim is to conduct a Test Identification
Parade as it is done for the identification of the accused. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in several cases that the investigating officer has to
hold a Test Identification Parade in respect of stolen jewels or articles,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
especially, when a specific description of the jewel or article, is not
mentioned in the complaint.
(a) In Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2009) 9 SCC
152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
“27. This takes us again to the apathy on the part of the Investigating
Officer in not getting the ornaments identified by holding a Test Identification
Parade. We do not know why that was not done and why such a weak type of
evidence (identification for the first time in the Court) was introduced.”
(b) In Venkatesh alias Chandra and Another v. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
held as follows:
“34.The crucial aspect is that even after the recovery of the ornaments,
no Test Identification Parade was arranged by the Investigating Machinery.
The ornaments worn by the deceased were normal ornaments which a lady
would wear. Out of three witnesses examined by the Prosecution, the mother
and the sister of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution on
identification of the ornaments. The only person who supported the case was
the husband of the deceased who was not subjected to any Test Identification
Parade.
35. The missing links in this circumstance are quite crucial and
important. We, therefore, do not hold this circumstance to have been fully
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
established and the connection of the appellants with the missing ornaments
cannot be said to have been established.”
(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2022) 13 SCC 705 had held as follows:
29.In Ashish Jainv.Makrand Singh [Ashish Jain
v.Makrand Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 770 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri)
256] , it is held as follows : (SCC p. 782, para 28)
“28. We find substance in the argument of the
learned Amicus Curiae that this identification was not done
in accordance with due procedure. It is evident from the
testimony of several of the examined pledgors, such as PWs
15, 16 and 28, that the identification procedure was
conducted without mixing the recovered jewellery with
similar or identical ornaments.”
30. In this case also in regard to the mobile phone
only the two mobiles were kept for identification and it was
purportedly identified as noticed by PW 9 besides PW 8. In
the identification conducted by PW 13, it has come out that
two mobile phones were not mixed with any other mobile
phones
34. In Baiju v. State of M.P. [Baiju v. State of M.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 588 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 142] , the Court held :
(SCC p. 595, para 14)
“14. … The question whether a presumption should be
drawn under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence
Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the
circumstances of each case. Thus the nature of the stolen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
article, the manner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature
of the evidence about its identification, the manner in which it
was dealt with by the appellant, the place and the
circumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening
period, the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his
possession, are factors which have to be taken into
consideration in arriving at a decision.”
That was a case where the Court found that the prosecution
had proved the case. [emphasis supplied]
(d) Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Jain vs
Makrand Singh reported in (2019) 3 SCC 770 had held as follows:
“18.The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee was
directed by us to engage a counsel for the respondent-accused
since none had appeared for them. An Amicus Curiae was
appointed to assist us in relation to the arguments for the
respondents. He supported the majority view taken by the High
Court in acquitting the accused persons, in entirety. He argued
that there are discrepancies in the evidence relating to the
arrests made and the alleged recoveries made by the police at
the instance of the accused. The learned Amicus also stated that
out of the recovery witnesses, who are all relatives of the
deceased, only PW 26 has been examined. The non-examination
of other witnesses, especially one Bahadur Yadav (the only
independent witness), a servant of Premchand, who had
allegedly assisted the police in the identification of the recovered
ornaments by the mortgagees, was said to be crucial for the
prosecution case. He further argued that no proper procedure
was followed for the identification of the ornaments by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mortgagees, and the police had taken active interest in the
identification of the ornaments, which was suspicious. Lastly, he
submitted that the last seen circumstance was not proved.
...
“28. We find substance in the argument of the learned
Amicus Curiae that this identification was not done in
accordance with due procedure. It is evident from the testimony
of several of the examined pledgors, such as PWs 15, 16 and 28,
that the identification procedure was conducted without mixing
the recovered jewellery with similar or identical ornaments.
Additionally, there is nothing on record to show the identity of
the pledgors and to prove that the identified ornaments were
pledged by them to the deceased Premchand, except for the
account books maintained by the deceased Premchand for his
business, but these cannot be relied upon. This is because these
account books were seized by the police from the possession of
Shailendra Kumar Jain, PW 11, who is the son-in-law of the
deceased. Incidentally, he also runs a similar money-lending
business as a pawn broker in another town. No valid reason is
accredited to the recovery of deceased Premchand's alleged
account books from the possession of his son-in-law. Moreover,
these account books were returned to him without any prayer for
the same and without following any procedure. Later, it was
found that there were additional entries made in the account
book after the date of the incident. Moreover, none of the
witnesses have spoken about the particular entry relating to
them in the account books. No signature of any witness is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
identified and marked in the account books. In other words,
none of the witnesses have deposed about any relevant entry
found in the account books with reference to their respective
gold/silver articles.” [emphasis supplied]
(v) Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular of order, 1990
framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reads as follows:
35. Identification of property:
(1) Identification parades of properties shall be held
in the Court the Magistrate where the properties are
lodged;
(2) Each item of property shall be put up separately
for the parade. It shall be mixed up with four or similar
objects.
(3). Before calling upon the witnesses to identify the
property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks
of his property. Witnesses shall be called in one after the
other and on leaving shall not allowed to communicate with
the witness not yet called.
(vi) Rule 9 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, framed by this
Court deals with Test Identification Parade. However, the said Rule pertains
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the identification of the accused. There is no Rule similar to the one
framed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as regards the identification of
the property. We are of the view that it is necessary for the investigating
officer to conduct the Test Identification Parade in respect of jewels or
articles that are alleged to have been stolen in accordance with the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, when unique
identifying features of the jewels or articles stolen are not mentioned by the
victim in the complaint.
11. (i) The next circumstance is the evidence of PW17, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who was working in the fingerprint Bureau.
When we asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as to why the
chance fingerprints and the specimen finger prints said to have been taken
from the appellants were not sent to a fingerprint expert, he brought to our
notice a Standing Instructions-43/2013 issued by the Director General of
Police on 26.08.2013, in which it is stated that in view of an inordinate
delay in obtaining the required certificate from the fingerprint experts due to
acute shortage of such experts, the officers may obtain a 'Certificate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Finger Print Examination' from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (FP),
Single Digit Fingerprint Bureau of their respective District
Commissionerates and that if the DSP (FP) feels that a case is important, he
may forward the case to the Superintendent of Police (FP).
(ii) In the instant case, we find that the fingerprint expert had marked
three exhibits viz., Ex.P16 to Ex.P18. In Ex.P16 the expert from the
Fingerprint Bureau had stated that the chance fingerprints [K1 and K3] were
not identical with the specimen fingerprints of the deceased and the witness
PW2. In Ex.P17, he had stated that the chance fingerprint [K1] is identical
with the left thumb impression of A2 and chance fingerprint [K3] is
identical with the left ring finger of A1. In Ex.P17, he has given reasons for
concluding that the chance finger prints K1 and K3, were identical with the
fingerprints of the accused.
(iii) It is well settled that the evidence of a fingerprint expert is not a
substantive evidence and it can only corroborate the other evidence on
record. However, as to what value could be attached to a report given by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
police officer, who claims to be trained in fingerprint comparison, even for
the purpose of corroboration, would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
(iv) In the instant case, even assuming that PW17 was competent to
compare the chance fingerprints taken from the scene of the occurrence with
the specimen fingerprints taken from the appellants, we find that there is
lapse as could be seen from the evidence of PW17. It is the prosecution
case that chance fingerprints found in the main door of the house and the
bureau [almirah] tallied with the fingerprints of the appellants. The chance
fingerprints were lifted as early as on 06.11.2014, a day after the
occurrence. The appellants were arrested on 14.11.2014. It is the evidence
of PW18 that he had handed over the specimen fingerprints of the accused,
which were found in the Arrest register in the police station to PW17, for
comparison with the chance fingerprints. However, in the cross
examination, the investigating officer stated that he had sent the specimen
fingerprints on 14.11.2014. He also admitted that there is no record to
substantiate the said fact. He has further admitted that in the report of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PW17 [Ex.P18] there is no reference to any communication sent by the
investigating officer enclosing the specimen fingerprints. The relevant
portion of PW18's evidence reads as follows:
“vjphpaplk; bgwg;gl;l ifnuiffis 14/11/2014k;
njjp v';fSila Jiw eltof;ifapd; go ftu;
K:ykhf mDg;gp itj;njd; mjw;fhd Mtz';fs;
nfhg;gpy; ,y;iy/ ifnuif epg[zu; mwpf;ifapy;
08/11/2014 kw;Wk; 10/11/2014k; njjpapl;l vd; mYtyf
foj';fs; vd Fwpg;glg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; mjpy;
mt;thW jhd; cs;sJ/”
(v) That apart, it can be seen that in the report of the Fingerprint
Bureau, there is no reference to any letter on 14.11.2014. Therefore, in the
absence of any definite evidence as to whether the specimen fingerprints of
the accused were taken and sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, the comparison
would not be relevant, and it would be difficult to place reliance on such a
report.
12. In the light of the above evidence, we are of the view that PW2's
evidence identifying the accused/appellants in Court, is valueless. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arrest and recovery are also highly doubtful. In any case, when the specific
identification marks of the jewel, have not been stated by PW1 in his
complaint, it is not known as to how the investigating officer, during the
investigation, had concluded that the jewel recovered from A1 was one
belonging to PW2. The Fingerprint Bureau's comparison is also of no use
for the reasons stated above. Hence, we are of the view that we cannot hold
the appellants guilty on the basis of such evidence. The prosecution has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are therefore
entitled to acquittal. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial Court, is hence liable to be set aside.
13. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the appellants
are acquitted of all the charges. The conviction and sentence passed in
S.C.No.107 of 2016, dated 09.07.2019 on the file of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, are set aside. The fine amounts, if any, paid by
the appellants shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand
discharged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
02.08.2024
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : yes/no
ars
Issue order copy today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ars
To
1. The Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kottapatti Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
