LexRAMPAL PITHWAS RAHIDASS AND ORS. versus 'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
RAMPAL PITHWAS RAHIDASS AND ORS.
A
'· '
v.
'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
MARCH 1, 1989
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
B
Evidence Ac~S. 133, S. J l~onviction of an accused on the un-cor-
(
roborated testimony of an accomplice-Rule of prndence as per illustration
(b) of S. 114-Accomplice does not deserve to be relied upon without cor-
roboration in material particulars.
c
Criminal Triaf-Status of after grant of pardon-Duty of Coult-The
status of an accused changes into that of a witness only after grant of
pardon-Statement must be recorded immediately after grant of pardon.
S. 164 and Criminal Procedure Cod~Statement of approvel'-Value D
of corroboration of evidenc&-Only sought when approver's evidence is other-
.... wise acceptable .
Very detailed nature of evidence of approver after 3 years of occun-ence
and making improvements upon the confessional statement lacks authen-
E
ticity.
Sequence of examination as a witness-An approver should ordinarily
be examined as a first witness at a trial and not at the end when he has had
occasion to know the other evidence led by the prosecution.
F
.....
ldentificatioit-ldentification in absence of any test identification when
accused were wearing masks and were not known to the witnesses-Not
trnstworthy.
Investigating Agencies-Role of-Must set fairly and honestly and must G
not act in a manner which shakes the confidence of the common man in the
system of dispensation .of criminal justice.
.
..,.
Panch Witnesses-Recoveries made at different pieces on different dates
at the instance of different accused in the presence of the same Panch
witness-Not reliable.
H
179
\
1994
}
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 2 S.C.R.
A
According to the prosecution two watchmen on construction site
/
near a highway were assaulted by 9 assailants who then proceeded to
{ .
waylay six other persons passing on the highway and violently assaulted
them and escaped from the spot :after committing dacoity and consequfntly
5 victims of the assault died as a result of the injuries. Injured witness D
B gave a statement which formed the basis for the F.I.R. No arrest was made
for about 4 days leading to tension at the town C and there were demonsru·
lion in the town against the police inaction.
One R who later on turned an approver was arrested 4 days after
)
the event in connection with an allegation regarding an innocous incident
c involving touching of a bicycle under circumstances and for reasons not
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. During Interrogation, R dis·
closed bis involvement In the sensational dacoity 4 days earlier and con·
sequent to the information disdosed by R, all other accused and one more
person M were arrested, M, however, died in police custody within 3 days
D
of bis arrest. 'Thereafter accused R made a voluntary statement under S.
164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate giving
details of the crime. This led to some recoveries and arrest of two more "
persons. On grant of pardon R turned an approver. The prosecution in
support of Its case primarily relied upon the testimony of the approver,
the statements of the injured witnesses and recoveries of articles allegedly
E belonging to the dead persons. The defence of the accused was one of denial
and false implication.
Accepting ·the approver"s statement the trial Court convicted all the
eight accused u.nder S.302/14!1 I.P.C. as well as Sections 307 and 395 I.P.C.
F
and sentenced them to deatln. In appeal and coltlirmation proceeding In
the High Court, 3 accused Wt're acquitted and the conviction under S. 302
.II'
I.P.C. and consequent death, sentences were maintained in respect of 5
accused. All the 5 convicted accused and the State (against the acquittal
of 3 accused persons) appealled to this Court.
G
Allowing the appeals o[ the accused and dismissing that of the State,
this Court
HELD : 1. That the circumstances surrounding the initial arrest of
the approver R were curious and the prosecution concocted a false story ,,. ..
about the arrest of R who was planted as an accused In order to silence the
H large discontent against the police due to its inability to apprehend the
f
RAMPAL v. STATEOFMAHARASHTRA
181
culprits. The recovery of a bag at the instance of R was also not free from A
'
doubt due to conflict in versions regarding its contents. The version in R's
confessional statement under S. 164 Cr. P.C.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.