July 5, 2019
Division bench of the Supreme Court was hearing 2nd Appeal against conviction under Sections 302, 34 and 392 of Indian Penal Code.
Brief facts of the case were that a 79-year-old woman used to reside along with her daughter and grand daughter in Nagpur. Her daughter, a school teacher and used to leave home for her work in morning and return back in the evening and grand daughter was studying in a college & she too used to leave for her classes at about 10.00 a.m. and return by afternoon. Deceased, thus, would remain alone in the house during the afore stated period.
On fateful day, deceased was all by herself in the house. When grand daughter returned from college she found her grandmother lying dead with visible signs of strangulation. The T.V. set kept in the drawing room was found missing. She rushed to her neighbours. One of the neighbours (the star prosecution witness) had noticed that 2 young boys had come on a red coloured motorcycle, stopped it in front of the Apartments, entered the apartment building & after some time vanished from the spot.
The appellants had been convicted by the Trial Court for Murder, Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy. Conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court. Both these judgments were under challenge in this 2nd Appeal.
The appellants argued that no Test Identification Parade was conducted before the Court to establish the presence of appellants at the place of crime, even though the star prosecution witness has acknowledged that the two young persons who came on the red coloured motorcycle had covered their faces with mufflers.
The Supreme Court observed that, "since the appellants have not disputed their identity in the cross-examination of the star witness or any other witnesses, it is too late for them to allege that no Test Identification Parade was conducted."
The bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant reiterated,
"It is no longer debatable that the Identification Parade of the accused before the Court is not the main substantive piece of evidence, rather it is corroborative in nature."
The Apex Court noted that both the Courts below had weighed the evidence to reach a definite conclusion that the appellants and the appellants alone entered the apartment of deceased and committed her murder by strangulation with a motive to commit robbery in the house.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no factual or legal infirmity in the findings returned by the Courts below. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Read Judgement:
Picture Source :
