PRAVIN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 367 
----1 
PRAVIN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2008) 
MARCH 25, 2008 
B 
k 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- s.395 rlw ss.397 and 450: 
Oacoity - Bank dacoity in broad day-light by using fire- c 
arms -- Conviction of Appellant by Courts below- Justification 
of - Held: Justified - Witnesses were bank employees who 
were with the dacoits for substantial time - Dacoits had not 
covered their faces - Identification in peculiar facts of the case 
by PW1 and other witnesses acceptable inspite of the so-
called defects shown by defence in holding investigation -
D 
Presumption uls.114 of the Evidence Act, in view of recovery 
of huge sum and stolen property from possession of Appellant 
- Also, corroborating evidence of recovery of other materials 
like bag of PW-6 - Besides, no explanation for seizure of 
unlicenced gun and bullets - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.25(1-B)(a) 
E 
and 27 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114. 
Two persons, alleged to be involved in committing 
dacoity in a bank in broad day-light, were convicted by 
the Trial Court under s.395 r/w ss.397 and 450, IPC and 
also under ss.25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The 
F 
>--,l 
conviction was upheld by the High Court. While one 
convicted accused came up before this Court by way of 
the present appeal, the other convicted accused has not 
challenged his conviction. 
The contention of Appellant is that the identification G 
parade in respect of the accused was a farce as 
photographs of both the accused persons were already 
-
_.., 
shown to the witnesses; that if the identification itself 
367 
H 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A failed, then there was hardly any evidence left against the 
accused and that the discoveries of the so-called stolen 
property was also farcic;:il and insignificant. 
As against this, the prosecution pointed out that the 
witnesses were bank officers who were with the dacoits 
8 for substantial time and, therefore, had the opportunity to 
watch the accused persons closely and as such 
identification of the accused persons in Court at the 
instance of the eye-witnesses was no less significant; that 
the discoveries made included the bag of PW-6 along with 
C the documents therein which established an unassailable 
nexus of the accused with the crime and that even the 
·vehicles used for committing the crime were seized and 
identified by the witnesses. It was further contended that 
·since both the Courts below had concurrently found the 
D accused guilty on the basis of appreciation of evidence 
and since no significant error was pointed out, this Court 
should not interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 136 of 
the Constitution. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1.The evidemce of PW-1, Branch Manager of 
, the Bank, was the most: important as he had graphically 
described as to how th1e dacoity took place and how he 
. was taken out by the two accused persons. This witness 
F had further stated that it was almost within 10 minutes 
after the dacoits left the bank that the police reached there. 
There is no significant 1:ross-examination of this witness 
, at all as regards the evidence and more particularly his 
G 
· identification of the accused in the Court. He had very 
specifically identified the Appellant. Very significantly no 
question has been put to this witness. It was not 
suggested if the accused had covered their faces. There 
is no challenge also to the story that the dacoits had 
pointed revolver at him. In the absence of any substantial 
1 cross-examination, the Trial Court and the High Court were 
H 
I 
I 
PRAVIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
369 
- --1 
not in error in accepting the evidence of this witness A 
particularly about his identification. The witness had full 
opportunity in broad day-light to be with the accused and 
the incident itself was so significant that it would 
undoubtedly make a dent on his memory. He was after-all 
an educated bank officer holding a responsible position B 
of a Branch Manager. Since his evidence about knowing 
the accused-appellant was not at all challenged, the courts 
below were right in accepting the evidence. [Para 12] 
[378-C, D, E, F, G; 379-A] 
1.2. It is true that in his substantive evidence, PW1 c 
did not speak about his identifying the Appellant in the 
identification parade but there is a clear cut evidence of 
the Magistrate who conducted the Parade confirming such 
ide

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