RAMKISHAN MITHANLAL SHARMA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 22-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, B. JAGANNADHADAS, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ . 
' 
--
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
_,,. 
RAMKISHAN MITHANLAL SHARMA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY. 
[And Two Connected Appeals] 
[BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
903 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s. 162-Whether 
applicable to investigations under the City of Bombay Police Act 
(Bombay Act IV of 1902) prior to its repeal by Bombay Act XXII 
of 1951-Evidence relating to 
test identification 
parades-Whether 
and under what circumstances admissible under s. 162 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedul'e. 
Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 27-Evidence that discovery 
was made "in consequence of information given by the accused" or 
"at the instance of the accused", whether admissible, when the admis-
sible part of the information given is not sought to be proved. 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), ss. 297, 298, 537-
Charge 
to the 
Jury-Duty of 
fudge-Misdirection-Effect of-
lndian Evidence 
Act (I of 1872), s. 167-Improper admission or 
rejection of evidence-Effect of-Duty of Appellate Court in hearing 
appeal. 
Investigation in this case was started on the 20th April, 1951, 
under the City of Bombay Police Act (Bombay Act IV of 1902), 
the provisions of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure being then in-
applicable to 
Bombay City Police by virtue of s. 1 (2) (a) of the 
Code. 
In 1951, the Bombay Police Act (Bombay Act XXII of 1951) 
was passed by which both the Bombay Act IV of 
1.902 and the 
provision in s. 1 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far 
as it made the Code inapplicable to 
Bombay City Police, were 
repealed. 
This Act came into force on 1st August, 1951, and after 
that date the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure became 
applicable to investigations by the Bombay City Police. 
Under s. 63 of the City of Bombay Police Act (Bombay Act 
IV of 1902), no statement made by a person to a 
Police Officer 
during investigation, reduced 
to writing, may be used in evidence, 
while under s. 162 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure the ban 
applies also to oral statements made to a Police 
Officer 
during 
investigation, not reduced to writing. 
Held, that s. 162 of the Code of 
Criminal 
Procedure by its 
very context and terms, applied to investigations conducted under 
Chapter XIV of the Code, and could 
not operate retrospectively 
and apply to investigations conducted prior to 1st 
August, 1951,. 
by the Bombay City Police, as they were not investigations con-
ducted under Chapter XIV of the Code. 
The test identification 
parades in regard to accused I and 2 having been held prior to the 
1st August, 1951, s. 162 of the Code did not apply to the evidence 
2-89 S.C. India/59 
October 22. 
1954 
Ramkishan 
Mithanlal Sharma 
v. 
T/u State of 
Bomb aye 
. 904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
received in regard to these parades, but the section applied to the 
evidence relating to 
the test indentification 
parades in regard to 
accused 4 as these were held after 1st August, 1951. 
Banwari Cope v. Emperor (A.LR. 1943 Patna 18) and Delhi 
Cloth Mills v. Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi (A.LR. 1927 P.C. 
242), referred to. 
~fhe purpose of identification parades being to enable witnesses 
to identify the properties involved or the persons concerned in the 
offence 
under investigation, 
the 
very 
process 
of identification 
involves a statement by the identifying witness that the particu~ar 
property or person identified was concerned in the offence. 
This 
statement may be express or implied. 
Such a state1nent, whether 
express or implied, including signs and gestures, would am<?unt ro 
a con1munication of the fact of identification by the identifier to 
another person, and where the identifications are 
held in the pre-
sence of the Police, such communications are tantamount to state-
ments made by the identifiers to a Police Officer in the course of 
investigation and cotne within the ban of: s. 162 of the Code. The 
physical fact of identification has no separate existence apart from 
the statement involved in the very process of identification, and in 
so far as a Police Officer seeks to prove the fact of such identifica-
tion, such evidence would be inadmissible under s. 162 of the C:::ode, 
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 identifi-
cation of the accused at the trial. 
Where the Polic

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