ARJUN SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1013 
ARJUN SINGH 
A 
V. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1661 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 376(2)(g}, 323134,and 452134 - Prosecutrix named c 
appellant-accused on the ground that during commission of 
the crime miscreants were addressing each other by their 
names - Conviction by trial Court - Upheld by High Court -
HELD: Unlike other accused, appellant was not apprehended 
;,l, 
at the spot - Trial court itself held that there was no test identi-
D 
-) 
fication parade in the eye of law as accused persons had been 
shown earlier to prosecutrix - There being no evidence to show 
the presence of appellant at the place of occurrence or his 
participation in the crime, appellant acquitted - Test ldentifi-
cation Parade - Evidence. 
E 
Six persons were prosecuted for commission of of-
fences punishable u/ss. 452/34, 323/34 and 376(2)(g) IPC. 
The trial Court found the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 
_,, 
1 ), her son (PW-3) and an old woman who tried but failed 
,. . 
to rescue the prosecutrix, reliable and convicted five of F 
the accused including the appellant. The appeal filed by 
the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the appel-
lant that unlike the other accused he was not appre-
G 
r' 
hended at the spot; that the prosecutrix did not know him 
but only stated that the miscreants were addressing each 
other by their names and on that basis she claimed to 
have come to know his name; and that in the absence of 
1013 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A any material to show that the appellant was the person 
whose name was being uttered by tl~e co-accused, he 
could not be held guilty. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 It is not disputed that unlike some others 
the appellant was not caught at the place of occurrence. 
The trial court itself held that there was no test identifica-
tion parade in the eye of law. The prosecutrix accepted in 
the witness box that she had been shown the accused 
C before identification. Therefore, identification of the ap-
pellant for the first time in the court was really of no con-
sequence. Added to that, the only evidence pressed into 
service by the prosecution so far as the appellant is con-
cerned, was, as stated by the prosecutrix, that his name 
0 
was similar to one of the names which the accused per-
sons uttered while addressing each other. That cannot 
be, by any stretch of imagination, an incriminating mate-
rial. [para 7] (1018-D, E) 
1.2 No evidence was led to show the presence of 
E the appellant at the spot of occurrence or his participa-
tion in the crime. That being so, the prosecution has mis-
erably failed to prove the accusations so far as the appel-
lant is concerned. He is acquitted of the charges. [para 8] 
(1018-F) 
F 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1661 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2007 of 
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Appeal 
G No. 455 of 2003 
Jagjit Singh, Chhabra (A.C.), Tatini Basu and Sudhir 
Nandrajog for the Appellant. 
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.... 
ARJUN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 
1015 
PRADESH 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
-I 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the ap-
peal filed by the appellant questioning the conviction for offence 
punishable under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 and 
B' 
Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 
'IPC'). 
--y 
3. By a common judgment five appeals preferred by the 
accused persons were disposed of. The accused persons were 
found guilty of offence punishable under the aforesaid offences 
by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 
c 
4. The prosecution versions during ~rial is as follows: 
The prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was married to a man, 
who was employed at a butcher's shop at Baijnath. Her hus-
D 
band fell ill and was perhaps rendered incapable of doing the 
;.!, 
job with the butcher. The prosecutrix approacned the butcher 
for employing her son, who was then aged just eleven years, for 
......,, 
doing odd jobs. The butcher offered to employ her son for graz-
ing his sheep and goats on monthly salary of Rs. 700/-. On E 
3.6.2002 the prosecutrix took her s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.