1954 (10) TMI 45 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of inadmissible evidence under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Misdirections in the learned Judge's charge to the jury.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for the conviction of the accused.

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Admission of Inadmissible Evidence:
The appellants contended that inadmissible evidence under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was admitted, which amounted to a misdirection to the jury. The main points of contention were:
- Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The appellants argued that evidence regarding test identification parades held under police supervision was inadmissible. The Court noted that Section 162 did not apply to investigations conducted by the Bombay City Police before 1st August 1951. However, for investigations after this date, Section 162 was applicable. The Court discussed the conflicting views of various High Courts on the admissibility of evidence from test identification parades, ultimately approving the view that such evidence is inadmissible under Section 162.
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: The appellants objected to the police officer's statements that discoveries were made "in consequence of" or "at the instance of" the accused. The Court held that Section 27 allows for the admissibility of information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered. The Court found that the evidence given by the Investigating Officer did not attract Section 27's operation as it did not seek to prove the exact information provided by the accused.

2. Misdirections in the Learned Judge's Charge to the Jury:
The appellants argued that the learned Judge's charge to the jury contained misdirections and non-directions that misled the jury and caused a failure of justice. The main contentions were:
- Number of Persons Involved: The appellants took exception to the Judge's statement that witnesses were definite about the number of men involved in the attack. The Court found no misdirection, stating that the Judge had fairly summarized the evidence and left it to the jury to decide.
- General Fairness of the Charge: The appellants contended that the Judge's charge was unfair and prejudicial as it reiterated the prosecution's story without highlighting its weaknesses. The Court, however, found that the Judge had been fair and had pointed out the defects and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, thus providing proper guidance to the jury.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence for the Conviction of the Accused:
- Accused 1 and 2: The Court held that the verdict of the jury against accused 1 and 2 was not vitiated by the admission of inadmissible evidence or by any misdirection or non-direction. The convictions and sentences were confirmed.
- Accused 4: The Court found that the admission of evidence from the test identification parades was a misdirection. However, after excluding this inadmissible evidence, the Court concluded that the remaining evidence was sufficient to maintain the conviction of accused 4. The evidence included the testimony of Sarvarkhan and the association of accused 4 with the other accused, which made his participation in the offence highly probable.

Conclusion:
The appeals of all the accused were dismissed. The Court confirmed the convictions and sentences of accused 1 and 2, and despite the misdirection regarding the test identification parades, found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction of accused 4.