Sudha @ Sudhakar, Balaji, Balaji @ Mohan and Dhana @ Dhanasekaran vs State

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Heard.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.3.1995 made in S.C. No. 32 of 1994 on the file of the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani. Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1995 is preferred by the fourth accused and Criminal Appeal No. 418 of

1995 is preferred by accused 1 to 3 in the said Sessions Case No. 32 of 1994. Since both the appeals arise from the same judgment dated

8.3.1995 made in S.C. No. 32 of 1994, they were heard and disposed of together.

3.1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of one Thiru. Thangavelu (P.W.1) and Thiru. Balaraman (P.W.2), who are working

as Conductor and Driver, respectively, of a bus bearing Registration No. PY-01 9798 plying between Pondicherry and Thirupathi, operated by

Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation, is stated, in brief, as follows:

3.2. The bus bearing Registration No. PY-01 9798 owned by Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation while plying between Thirupathi and

Pondicherry was returning from Thirupathi to Pondicherry on the night of 20.1.1994. It reached Vandavasi at about 1.45 a.m. on 21.1.1994. After

a break of 10 minutes for tea at Vandavasi, it proceeded to Pondicherry. Within ten minutes when the bus was nearing Maruthuvambadi Cross

Road, the accused, who were standing near the Conductor(P.W.1), assaulted him (P.W.1). The passengers screamed loudly. The Driver (P.W.2)

switched on the light, questioned the assault by the accused and stopped the vehicle. Immediately, the accused attacked the Driver (P.W.2) by

using knives and snatched away a blue colour leather cash bag (M.O.1) from P.W.1, containing the collection of the bus fare; took a brown colour

rexin bag (M.O.2), containing one white shirt (M.O.3), one blue colour checked lungi (M.O.4), a small towel (M.O.5) and the identity card

(M.O.6) of the Conductor and fled away on seeing a lorry coming from the opposite direction, in which one Ameed of Vandavasi Town, a fruit

merchant, was travelling. The said Ameed (P.W.5) shifted the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) in the said lorry to Vandavasi Bus

Stand, from where P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, by a police constable Ganesan (P.W.6), who was on beat

duty at Vandavasi bus stand.

3.3. Both the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) were admitted in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi by Dr. I. Ramalingam (P.W.11)

at 3.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994 and P.W.11 issued Accident Registers Exs.P15 and 16 recording the injuries on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2

respectively. In the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, P.W.1 gave a statement about the occurrence (Ex.P.1) at about 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994,

and the same was recorded by a Police Constable T.L. Paulraj (P.W.13), based on which P.W.13 registered a First Information Report

(Ex.P.19). After giving first aid in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, P.Ws.1 and 2 were referred to the General Hospital, Pondicherry, for

further management and treatment. Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the General Hospital, Pondicherry, in the casualty ward by Dr. P.

Muthayan (P.W.12), who issued the Medicolegal Examination Reports, marked as Exs.P.17 and 18 with respect to the wounds found on the

Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2).

3.4. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police at Vandavasi, K.R. Natesan (P.W.14) undertook investigation on the FIR (Ex.P.19), went to the

scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.20) in the presence of the Village Administrative

Officer(P.W.7), of Illangadu Village. As per Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar, the occurrence had taken place 4 kms. away on the southern side of

Vandavasi Police Station in Vandavasi to Tindivanam Road near Maruthuvampadi Cross Road, where the bus PY-01 9798 belonging to the

Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation was standing in the middle of the road towards Tindivanam. P.W.14 in his Observation Mahazar

(Ex.P.2) recorded that he noticed blood stains on the driver''s seat, door and body of the bus as well as on the road where the bus was standing.

3.5. From the place of occurrence, P.W.14 recovered the following material objects under a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of P.W.7 and one

Azirvadham:-

(i) one pair of rubber sandal chappal (M.O.16);

(ii) a rose colour turki towel with blue colour stripes (M.O.17);

(iii) trip sheet from 1.1.1994 to 20.1.1994 with respect to PY-01-9798 (M.O.18); and

(iv) a ticket book bearing tickets containing Serial Numbers 793201 to 793600 wherein the tickets were used upto Serial Number 793566

(M.O.19).

3.6. An investigation team (party sakitham) lead by P.W.14 and accompanied by P.W.7, who is familiar in and around Vandavasi, went in search

of the accused to apprehend them. When the investigation team was moving towards Vandavasi-Tindivanam Road, after enquiring ten persons,

they came across a suspicious person by name Balaji (A1) near Industrial Training Institute at Ponnur Road at about 3.00 p.m, and as he was

attempting to move away, P.W.14 interrogated him. During the interrogation, P.W.14 recovered the following material objects from A1 under a

mahazar Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.7:-

(i) a sum of Rs.1200/- (100 rupees currency note - 12 numbers) (M.O.20 series); and

(ii) a ticket No. 793527 (M.O.21);

3.7. The said Balaji (A1) gave a confession statement (admitted portion in the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.22) in the presence of

P.W.7. Based on the confession statement Ex.P.22, P.W.14 proceeded to the lands owned by one Veerasami, which is near the place of

occurrence and recovered the following material objects under a mahazar (Ex.P6) in the presence of P.W.7:-

(i) a black colour leather cash bag (M.O.1);

(ii) a rexin bag (M.O.2);

(iii) identity card of the Conductor (M.O.6); and

(iv) four pattaknives (M.Os.10 to 13);

3.8. On the information furnished by A1 in his confession statement marked as Ex.P.22, P.W.14 proceeded to Kancheepuram bus stand where

the other accused A2, A3 and A4 were supposed to wait for A1. Accordingly, on reaching Kancheepuram bus stand, P.W.14 found A2, A3 and

A4, namely, Balaji @ Mohan, Dhana @ Dhanasekaran and Sudha @ Sudhakaran waiting for the said Balaji (A1) near a tender coconut shop.

Identified by A1, P.W.14 arrested A2, A3 and A4 at Kancheepuram bus stand at 6.00 p.m. on 21.1.1994. Immediately, a search was conducted

by P.W.14 on A2, A3 and A4. P.W.14, during the search recovered the following material objects under a Mahazar (Ex.P11) in the presence of

P.W.7:-

(i) Rs.565/- (M.O.22 series) (100 rupees currency note - 5 numbers, 20 rupees note - 1 number, 10 rupees note - 2 & 5 rupees note - 5

numbers); and

(ii) and a ticket No. 793528 (M.O.23) from A2;

(iii) Rs.570/- (M.O.24 series) (100 rupees note - 5 numbers, 20 rupees note - 2 numbers & 5 rupees note - six numbers); and

(iv) a ticket No. 793529 (M.O.25) from A3;

(v) Rs.560/- (M.O.26 series) (100 rupees note - 3 numbers, 50 rupees note - 4 numbers, 20 rupees note - 1 number & 5 rupees note - 8

numbers); and

(vi) a ticket No. 793530 (M.O.27) from A4.

3.9. A2 and A3 gave confession statements to P.W.14 and the admitted portion in the confession statements were marked as Exs.P23 and 24

respectively. Based on the confession statement of A2, P.W.14 seized a checked lungi (M.O.4) under a mahazar Ex.P.10 in the presence of

P.W.7 and based on the confession statement of A3, P.W.14 seized a white shirt (M.O.3) from A3 under a Mahazar (Ex.P.11) in the presence of

P.W.7.

3.10. P.W.14 took further investigation into the matter, examined the witnesses and filed a final report against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 392, 397, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, who committed the case to the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani.

The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani, framed charges against A1 to A4 u/s 392 I.P.C. for the robbery of Rs.3,000/-; u/s 392 r/w 397

I.P.C. for having caused grievous injuries on the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) by using deadly weapons (M.Os.10 to 13) while

committing the said robbery; u/s 326 I.P.C. for having caused grievous hurt by cutting the Conductor (P.W.1) with a pattaknife on his right eye-

brow, right forehead, both left and right arms, right fore arm and right little finger and for having caused grievous hurt by cutting the Driver (P.W.2)

with a pattaknife on his left hand, right arm, left thumb, tenderness over the left knee; and u/s 506(ii) I.P.C. for having threatened the passengers to

cause death during the occurrence.

5.1. During the trial, 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14, 24 exhibits were marked as Exs.P1 to P24 and 34 material objects were

produced as M.Os.1 to 34, on behalf of prosecution.

5.2. Among 14 witnesses, the Conductor was examined as P.W.1, the Driver was examined as P.W.2; two passengers, who travelled in the bus

and had seen the occurrence, were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4, and one Ameed was examined as P.W.5, who was travelling in the lorry, which

came from the opposite side at about 2 a.m. on 21.1.1994, stopped near the place of occurrence, rescued P.Ws.1 and 2 and shifted them to the

Vandavasi bus stand, from where Beat Police Ganesan (P.W.6) took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, Vandavasi. P.W.11 was the

medical witness, namely, Dr. I. Ramalingam, who admitted P.Ws.1 and 2 in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, and referred P.Ws.1 and 2 to

the General Hospital, Pondicherry, where P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted by Dr. P. Muthayan (P.W.12) in the casualty ward. P.W.7 was the Village

Administrative Officer, who accompanied the investigating team lead by P.W.14. P.W.8 is the witness to the mahazar for the recovery of blood

stained clothes of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.10 was the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, who conducted an identification parade. P.W.13 was a Police

Constable, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1) in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi.

5.3. On the side of the defence, 6 witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 6 and 11 exhibits were marked as Exs.D1 to D11.

5.4. While questioning the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. after the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and A1, A2 and A3 stated that they never

travelled in the bus from Thirupathi to Pondicherry. A4 stated that he was travelling with his mother (D.W.3) to go to the Ashramam at

Pondicherry. As there was no bus to go to Melmaruvathur while coming from Vellore to Vandavasi, they stayed at Vandavasi bus stand on

20/21.1.1994, and that he was arrested on suspicion and charged for the above offence. D.Ws.1 and 5 are the reporters of ""Dina Malar"" and

Malai Malar"" respectively, through whom the accused marked Ex.D1 dated 22.1.1994 and Ex.D.2 dated 23.1.1994 respectively with respect to

the press news about the crime. D.Ws.2, 4 and 6 are the police officials, who accompanied P.W.14 during the search of the accused. D.Ws.2 and

4 were working in Vandavasi Police Station during the relevant time while D.W.6 was working in Vadavannakampadi Police Station.

The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani, appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 392, 392 r/w 397, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default one year

R.I. u/s 392 I.P.C; 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default one year R.I. u/s 392 r/w 397 I.P.C.; 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- in

default one year R.I. u/s 326 I.P.C.; and 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default one year R.I. u/s 506(ii) I.P.C. and all the sentences to run

concurrently deducting the sentence already undergone. Hence, these appeals.

Mr. Yeswanth Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. No. 390/95 and Mr. Rajkumar Robert, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants in Crl.A. No. 418/95, waded through the evidence available on record, as well as the judgment of the learned trial Judge and

contend vehemently as follows:

(i) The prosecution failed to explain the basis for suspecting A1 in the above crime. In the absence of any room for suspecting A1, there could not

be any assumption of guilt for which A1 could be charged and tried. Consequently, the very arrest of A1, the recording of confession statement of

A1, the recovery of the material objects based on the confession of A1, and the arrest of A2 to A4 are all liable to be rejected;

(ii) There is no proper explanation for not citing any local witness with respect to:

(a) the arrest of A1;

(b) the recording of confession statement of A1 (Ex.P22);

(c) the recovery of leather bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2), identity card (M.O.6) and four pattaknives (M.Os.10 to 13) under mahazar (Ex.P.6);

(d) the recovery of a white shirt (M.O.3) on the confession made by A3 (Ex.P24) under mahazar (Ex.P.11);

(e) the recovery of a checked lungi (M.O.4) on the confession made by A2 (Ex.P23) under mahazar (Ex.P10);

(f) the recovery of one pair of rubber sandal chappal (M.O.16) under Ex.P3;

(g) the recovery of a blood stained rose colour blue checked towel (M.O.17) from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P3;

(h) the recovery of trip sheet from 1.1.1994 to 20.1.1994 with respect to the bus bearing registration No. PY-01-9798 (M.O.18) under Ex.P3;

(i) the recovery of a sum of Rs.1200/- (M.O.20 series) and a ticket No. 793527 (M.O.21) from A1 under mahazar (Ex.P4)

(j) the recovery of a sum of Rs.565/- (M.O.22 series) and a ticket No. 793528 (M.O.23) from A2 under mahazar (Ex.P7);

(k) the recovery of a sum of Rs.570/- (M.O.24 series) and a ticket No. 793529 (M.O.25) from A3 under mahazar (Ex.P7); and

(l) the recovery of a sum of Rs.565/- (M.O.26 series) and a ticket No. 793530 (M.O.27) from A4 under mahazar (Ex.P7);

(iii) Even though P.W.7 was the Village Administrative Officer of Illangadu Village, there is no proper explanation on behalf of the prosecution as

to why he accompanied the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) till all the accused were arrested, their confession statements were recorded and the

material objects were recovered;

(iv) P.W.7, could not be a natural witness for all the arrests and recovery of material objects, from different places at different points of time.

Therefore, in the absence of any other independent local witness, it would not be safe to convict the accused placing reliance on the evidence of

P.W.7;

(v) When the Conductor (P.W.1) in his earliest statement marked as Ex.P1 recorded at about 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994, based on which, the first

information report (Ex.P.19) was registered, had stated that two persons assaulted him on his head and both arms repeatedly with long knives and

snatched away the cash bag (M.O.1) which contains Rs.3000/- and also took the rexin bag (M.O.2) which contains a white shirt (M.O.3) and a

checked lunghi (M.O.4), and other two persons assaulted the Driver (P.W.2) on his arms with a long knife, there is no basis for framing the above

charges against A1 and A2 that they assaulted the Conductor (P.W.1) and A3 and A4 assaulted the driver (P.W.2);

(vi) Even though P.W.1 had stated in his statement (Ex.P.1) that he could identify the accused if they were seen in person, as recorded in the First

Information Report (Ex.P.19), he could not have seen the accused for want of sufficient light at the time of occurrence. Inviting attention to the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Mr. Rajkumar Robert, points out that P.W.1 shouted only after receiving three cut injuries and the Driver (P.W.2)

switched on the light only after hearing the cry of the Condcutor (P.W.1). Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in 1983 (7) ACR 222

(SC) : Mr. Rajkumar Robert contends that in the absence of any evidence that there was minimum light at the time of occurrence, it may not be

safe to accept the statement of P.W.1 made in Ex.P1, that he could identify the accused if seen in person. It is further contended that the

identification of the accused by the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) could not be relied upon without any proper explanation for the

delay of three months for conducting the identification test. In this regard, Mr. Rajkumar Robert, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,

places reliance on the following decisions;

(1) Budhsen and Another Vs. State of U.P., :

(2) Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, :

(3) Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 368a :

(4) 1983 (7) ACR 222 (SC) ;

(5) Subash and Shiv Shankar Vs. State of U.P., :

(6) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy and others, :

(7) Chotey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 144; and

(8) Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, :

(vii) Even though the Conductor (P.W.1) in his statement (Ex.P.1) had stated that the accused used long knives, he had deposed before the Court

that the accused used ""Veecharuval"". On the other hand, the Driver (P.W.2) had deposed that the accused used pattaknives, and P.Ws.3 and 4

(passengers), who were examined as eye witnesses, had deposed that the accused used ""knives"" for criminal intimidation. These discrepancies with

respect to the description of the weapons used for the commission of the offence vitiates the case of the prosecution;

(viii) While the prosecution had chosen to examine one Ameed (P.W.5), as a chance witness, who was travelling in a lorry, which came from the

opposite direction, and reached the place of occurrence immediately after the crime, there is no proper explanation by the prosecution for not

examining the driver of the said lorry;

(ix) There is no evidence by P.W.5, who was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence immediately after the crime, that he had seen

P.Ws.3 and 4 when he reached the place of occurrence;

(x) P.Ws.1 and 2 were not specifically questioned by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Cheyyar, who conducted the identification parade, as

to whether P.Ws.1 and 2 had any occasion to see the accused before conducting the identification parade.

(xi) In the absence of any specific identification by the Conductor (P.W.1) that A1 and A2 assaulted him by pattaknives and by the Driver (P.W.2)

that A3 and A4 assaulted him by using knives, it may not be safe to rely on the report of the identification parade (Ex.P14), as P.Ws.1 and 2 had

also an occasion to see the photographs of the accused, which were published in ""Dina Malar"" (Ex.D1) and ""Malai Malar"" (Ex.D10), as proved by

the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 5 in the light of Exs.D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D10 and D11. Hence, the conviction of the accused based on the report of

the identification parade (Ex.P.14) is unsafe and in this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra

Pradesh Vs. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy and others, :

(xii) The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) is totally unreliable as his evidence does not corroborate with any of the substantive

witnesses except the evidence of P.W.7, whose evidence has to be discarded, as he could not be a natural witness either to the arrest or for

recording the confession statement or to the recovery of material objects;

(xiii) The failure to send the material objects for finger print test, and the blood stained weapons to the Serologist''s test create a serious doubt

which would benefit the accused;

(xiv) While P.Ws.3 and 4 and D.W.3 deposed that the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) collected tickets from them, P.W.14 denies the same; and

(xv) In view of the above contradictions in the evidence and serious infirmities, deficiencies and impossibilities in the prosecution case, as held by

the Apex Court in Toran Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, : it may not be safe to convict the accused.

In reply, Mr. K.V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, submits that:

(i) There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W.1 recorded in Ex.P.1 that he could identify the accused if seen in person, as Ex.P.1 was

recorded at about 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994 immediately after two hours;

(ii) Even though there are discrepancies with respect to the description of weapons, viz., Pattaknife/ Veecharuval/Knives, used in the crime, as

deposed by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, it is contended that such minor discrepancies would not vitiate the case of the prosecution, when their evidence

corroborates with the medical evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.12, the Accident registers Exs.P15 and P16, and the Medico-legal Examination

Reports Exs.P17 and P18, as well as the material objects M.Os.10 to 13;

(iii) Even though the assault was initiated on P.W.1 in red light, P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically stated that immediately after the initial attack by the

accused on the Conductor (P.W.1), the Driver (P.W.2) switched on the light. On the other hand, the medical evidence, referred to above, shows

that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained more cut injuries. Since the latter injuries were caused after the light was switched on, the decision of the Apex Court

in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. JAGESHWAR AND OTHERS, referred supra, is not applicable to the facts of the case;

(iv) Being a highway robbery, admittedly, there was a wide coverage in the press about the alleged occurrence on the very same day immediately

after the occurrence i.e. on 21.1.1994, in two dailies, namely, ""Dhina Malar"" dated 22.1.94 (Ex.D1) and ""Malai Malar"" dated 21.1.94 (Ex.D10),

which have circulation in that locality. Hence, the said publication of the news by the press, by itself could not render the prosecution case weak or

doubtful;

(v) In view of the grave nature of the crime, which had taken place, a team of police officials headed by the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) was

entrusted with the task of apprehending the culprits, to ensure the confidence in the minds of the general public. Therefore, neither the non-

examination of D.Ws.2, 4 and 6, who accompanied P.W.14 during his investigation of the crime and search of the culprits, on the prosecution

side, nor any minor contradiction or discrepancy among the evidence of P.W.14 or P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer of Illangadu Village,

who accompanied the investigation team, could not be a ground to discredit the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 14, who spoke about the arrest of A1,

recording of confession statement of A1 (Ex.P.22), the recovery of the weapons (M.Os.10 to 13) used for commission of the crime, and the arrest

of A2, A3 and A4. The presence of P.W.7, Village Administrative Officer of Illangadu Village throughout the search and arrest of the accused,

seizure of the material objects, to be a witness for the confession statement of A1, A2 and A3 as well as a mahazar witness for recovering the

material objects also could not be a ground to reject his evidence totally, as P.W.7, being Village Administrative Officer, is familiar with the locality

in and around the place of occurrence. Therefore, the arrest of the A1; his confession statement; recovery of material objects M.Os.10 to 13; the

arrest of A2, A3 and A4; the confession statements of A2 and A3; and the recovery of material objects from them, could not be rejected for want

of local witnesses to the respective mahazars;

(vi) The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be lightly discarded as they were injured eye witnesses. No reason could be attributed against them

for implicating the accused; and

(vii) The evidence of the chance witness (P.W.5), corroborates with the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 with respect to the time and place of occurrence

as well as the injuries sustained by the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2), which in turn, corroborates with the evidence of the Doctor

(P.W.11), who admitted P.Ws.1 and 2 at the Government Hospital, Vandavasi and referred them to the General Hospital, Pondicherry, where

P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted by Doctor (P.W.12) in the casualty ward. The Accident Registers (Ex.P.15 and P16) issued by P.W.11 with regard

to the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Medico-legal Examination Reports Exs.P17 and P18, issued by P.W.12 speak about the

wounds on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and further strengthens the case of the prosecution that they were assaulted by the accused by

using the deadly weapons (M.Os.10 to 13).

I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions of both sides and have perused the relevant material evidence on record.

10.1. The crime in question is a highway robbery, an offence which shakes the confidence of safety in the minds of the general public and drags

them to the sense of insecurity while travelling and moving around. The evidence relied upon by the accused, namely, the press coverage about the

occurrence marked as Ex.Ds.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 itself is a strong proof for the occurrence said to have taken place between 1.45 and 2 a.m.

on 21.1.1994, while the bus belonging to Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation was driven by one Balaraman (P.W.2) with one

Thangavelu (P.W.1) as a Conductor, immediately within 10 minutes after the bus left Vandavasi. The evidence relied upon by the accused

Exs.D.1,2,3,4,5,10 and 11 as corroborated by the evidence of the press reporters (D.Ws.1 and 5) further proves the occurrence of the crime.

10.2. When such fear and apprehension was spreading in the locality due to the alleged crime, naturally, the State was obliged to act swiftly by

forming an investigation team (Party Sakitham) headed by P.W.14 for an immediate and effective investigation. Stimulus with such public duty, the

Investigating Officer (P.W.14) based on the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P.1) recorded by P.W.13, went to the scene of occurrence at about 6 a.m.

on 21.1.1994, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.20) in the presence of P.W.7. The Rough Sketch, as seen

from the original, shows that the occurrence had taken place amidst dense trees on both the sides of the Vandavasi-Tindivanam Road. The

occurrence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. almost in the mid-night. When such a grave crime was said to have taken place in an isolated densely

area, certainly the State police was burdened to set the police machinery on motion to apprehend the culprits at the earliest possible, as otherwise

the apprehension and insecurity in the minds of the general public would be spreading all around the State.

10.3. Under such backdrop, P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, reached the place of occurrence and found the bus bearing Registration No. PY-

01-9798 belonging to the Pondicherry Tourism Development Corporation stopped in the middle of the road. P.W.14 observed the blood stains

on the seat of the Conductor and that of the Driver and also on the body of the bus and on the road where the bus was standing. P.W.14

recovered towel (M.O.17) from the scene of occurrence. Further, P.W.14 with his investigation team (party sakitham) went in search of the

culprits in and around the locality after preparing the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) at about 6 a.m. P.W.7, who is also a public servant, viz.,

Village Administrative Officer, of Illangaudu Village, got into the jeep, accompanied the investigation team and moved from place to place in search

of the accused. At about 3 p.m., they came across A1 near Industrial Training Institute, Ponnur, who was a stranger to the locality and therefore,

was arrested on suspicion. When the prosecution proposed to fix the guilt on a person, who was arrested on suspicion, it is a trite law that more

judicial caution is required in the judicial armoury because ""greater the crime, greater should be the standard of proof"". The Court is, therefore,

inclined to see whether A1 much less A2 to A4 who were arrested based on the confession statement of A1 could be convicted merely on the

basis of suspicion.

10.4. The serious contention of Mr. Rajkumar Robert, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that there was no convincing reason or

explanation for not citing the witnesses of the locality either for the arrest of A1 or for his confession statement or for recovery of the material

objects, viz., M.Os.10 to 13, based on the confession statement of A1, or for the arrest of A2 to A4, or for the seizure of the material objects

from them, etc., except the evidence of P.W.7 through out. Of course, a serious complaint was also made on behalf of the appellants/accused

about the continuous presence of P.W.7 during the investigation, arrest of A1, recording his confession statement, recovery of M.Os.10 to 13, and

thereafter during the arrest of A2 to A4, recording their confession statements and while recovering other material objects from them.

10.5. Even though the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is impressive, in my considered opinion, as no motive could

be attributed against him (P.W.7), the company of P.W.7 with the investigation team cannot be either disbelieved or rejected as untrustworthy

merely for want of any local witness. The investigation had been mooted immediately after the occurrence with all seriousness for apprehending the

culprits. P.W.14 leading the investigation team to apprehend the culprits moved all around in the place of occurrence from 6 a.m. i.e. immediately

within four hours from the time of occurrence. The only person, who is also a public servant and was familiar with the locality, available, anxious

and willing to accompany the team of investigation in the jeep, at that time, was P.W.7. Viewing the company of P.W.7 with the investigation team

headed by P.W.14 from this angle, I do not see any reason to disbelieve his being a witness to the Mahazars throughout. P.W.7 and P.W.14

cogently and corroboratively narrated the course of investigation conducted as well as the arrest of the accused, recording of confession statements

of A1, A2 and A3, search and seizure of material objects from them.

10.6. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and their

evidence must be ranked high, but cannot be underestimated, as normally the injured witnesses do not screen the real offender and involve an

innocent person in his place.

10.7. Of course, the Court is bound to test whether the injured had an opportunity of seeing, recognizing, or identifying the assailant or whether

there was any possibility of false implication of an innocent person leaving the real and the actual assailant free. Even though a suggestion was made

to P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross examination that they had enemies in their trade union activities and that the occurrence could have been caused at the

instance of their trade union rivals, I do not find any reason to appreciate the said defence, because, if the occurrence had taken place at the

instance of trade union rivals, P.Ws.1 and 2 would have straightaway pointed out their fingers against them and would not have chosen to implicate

the innocent persons to rope them into the crime.

10.8. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, passengers who travelled in the same bus, who spoke about the occurrence and the

injuries caused on P.Ws.1 and 2, corroborate with the evidence of chance witness (P.W.5) and that of medical evidence (P.Ws.11 and 12)

supported with documentary evidence, viz., accident registers (Exs.P15 and 16) and the Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and 18). On

the whole, both the injured eye witnesses and eye witnesses cogently say that all the accused participated in the attack. That apart, the recovery of

the robbed properties of P.W.1 based on the confession statements of A1, A2, A3 and the absence of any iota of evidence to indicate that any of

the above injured eye witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), or eye witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 4) had any reason to join hands with the police to falsely implicate

the accused, neither the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 nor their testimony with reference to the commission of crime can be doubted.

10.9. Having held that the testimony of the injured eye witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), as well as the evidence of the Mahazar witness (P.W.7), and

that of the investigation Officer (P.W.14) are trustworthy and the recovery of the properties of P.W.1, namely leather cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag

(M.O.2), checked lungi (M.O.4), and the towel (M.O.5) from the accused 1 to 4 corroborates with that of the evidence of P.W.s.1, 2, 7 and 14,

the absence of any explanation by the accused for possession of such material objects, namely properties of P.W.1, further strengthens the case of

the prosecution, as it is well settled in law that absence of proper explanation for the possession of the property stolen leads a presumption against

the accused u/s 114(3) Illustration (A) of the Indian Evidence Act, as held by the Apex court in SANJAY Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 449; George Vs. State of Kerala, ; and Ezhil and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, .

10.10. Placing reliance on the decisions in:

(i) Budhsen and Another Vs. State of U.P., :

(ii) Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, :

(iii) Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 368a :

(iv) 1983 (7) ACR 222 (SC) :

(v) Subash and Shiv Shankar Vs. State of U.P., :

(vi) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy and others, :

(vii) Chotey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 144; and

(viii) Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, :

Mr. Rajkumar Robert, learned counsel for the appellants contends that there are lapses on the part of the investigating officer for not conducting

the identification test parade immediately after the occurrence. There is every necessity of an identification test parade in a robbery case and such

identification test parade should be conducted at the earliest point of time particularly, when the crime was said to have been committed in dim

light, and elapse of long-time in conducting the identification test parade cannot be entertained as the photographs of the accused were published

by the press.

10.11. The cardinal rule of law laid down by a catena of decisions, referred supra, is not disputed by the prosecution side. That apart, it is also

settled law that there cannot be a hard and fast rule that the identification test parade conducted should be rejected merely on the ground that there

was a delay in conducting the identification test parade, when such delay could be explained. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each

case and the condition of the witness to attend the identification test parade. In the instant case, the medical evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12

supported with the documentary evidence, namely accident registers (Exs.15 and 16) and the Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and

18), clearly prove the grave nature of the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2. The production of blood stained cloths of P.Ws.1 and 2

corroborates with the grievous nature of the injuries. P.Ws.1 and 2 were treated as inpatient for nearly one month and thereafter as outpatients.

P.W.1 in his earliest statement (Ex.P1), which was recorded immediately after two hours of the occurrence, had stated that he could identify the

accused if seen in person. If that be so, the delay in conducting the identification test parade for identifying the accused 1 to 4 by P.Ws.1 and 2,

itself, cannot be a legitimate ground to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are injured eye witnesses.

10.12. With regard to the other ground of attack on the identification test parade that the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Cheyyar, who conducted

the identification test parade has not taken sufficient caution to confirm whether the P.Ws.1 and 2 had any occasion to see the accused before

conducting the identification parade, I am of considered opinion that such lapses in the procedure would not, by itself, be a justification to reject the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, as held by the Apex Court in Somappa Vamanappa Madar and Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi Vs. State of Mysore, :

10.13. Narrating the beginning of the attack, P.W.2, the other injured eye witness, in his deposition stated that he heard the outcry of the

conductor, immediately switched on the light and turned back and witnessed all the four accused assaulting P.W.1. When P.W.2 questioned them,

the accused shouting ""Cut him also, why he pressed the horn and switched on the light"", started assaulting him. In his cross-examination P.W.2

stated that two persons standing in front and two persons standing in the back of the Conductor (P.W.1) assaulted him and thereafter, he (P.W.2)

applied brake and prevented the attack, but sustained injury and got down from the bus and fainted.

10.14. The other eye witness P.W.3, who was a passenger travelling in the same bus from Kancheepuram to Pondicherry, at the time of

occurrence, deposed that P.W.1 shouted when someone was attacking him and immediately P.W.2 tried to prevent the attack, but the accused

attacked P.W.2 also. P.W.3 further confirmed that the accused firstly attacked P.W.1, immediately P.W.2 switched on the light, followed by that

the accused attacked P.W.2, and extorted the passengers. When the accused saw a lorry coming from the opposite direction, they snatched the

cash bag (M.O.1) from P.W.1, took rexin bag(M.O.2) and fled away.

10.15. P.W.4, another eye witness, who travelled from Tirupathi to Pondicherry in the same bus, at the time of occurrence, corroborating with the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 deposed that she was awake from Tirupathi to Tiruttani and then slept for some time when the bus left Tiruttani and

reached Vandavasi. At Vandavasi, all other passengers had tea. After sometime, the bus left Vandavasi, P.W.2 alarmed and cried for help and on

hearing the noise all the passengers woke up and shouted having found P.W.1 and P.W.2 cut. P.W.4 deposed that two persons who were

standing near P.W.1. snatched the cash bag (M.O.1) and ran away and two persons attacked P.W.2 and ran away. P.W.4 after narrating the

incidents, also stated that all the passengers stayed at the place of occurrence for nearly one hour till the police came there and thereafter, they

came by walk to the police-station. P.W.4 also deposed that, when P.W.1 was moving back immediately after the attack, P.W.4''s saree got

blood stained. Even though the Police did not recover the said saree, obviously for the reason that P.W.4 would not have had another saree to

change, in my considered opinion, there is no need to doubt the testimony of P.W.4 as no motive is attributed against her and her evidence

corroborates with that of P.Ws.1 to 3. If the evidence, of P.Ws.1 to 4 are scrutinised minutely, they clearly prove that all the accused jointly

attacked P.Ws.1 and 2, snatched the cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2) and committed extortion.

10.16. P.Ws.1 and 2 graphically narrated the event of crime. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, natural witnesses, who travelled in the same bus

cogently speaks about the occurrence. A collective appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, shows that even though the accused initially

attacked in the red light all the eye witnesses deposed that immediately after the second attack on P.W.1 the Driver (P.W.2) switched on the light

and thereafter the accused attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 causing further injuries, snatched the cash bag (M.O.1) with cash and ran away with the

shoulder rexin bag (M.O.2) with the materials therein. The injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 as mentioned in Exs.P.15 and 16 respectively, read

as follows:

Injuries sustained by P.W.1

1) An incised wound over the right eye brow 1"" x """" x �"" bleeding.

2) An incised wound over the right fore head 1"" x """" x �"" bleeding.

3) An incised wound over the left fore arm upper 1/3rd 3""x1""x1"" bleeding.

4) An incised wound over the right arm interior upper 2"" x �"" x """" bleeding.

5) An incised wound over the right fore arm Medial Middle 1/3"" 3"" x 1"" x 1"".

6) An incised wound over the right little finger palmar surface dorsal 1"" x �"" x �"" bleeding.

Injuries sustained by P.W.

1) An incised wound over the left Thenar space hand 3"" x 1"" x """" bleeding.

2) An incised wound over the Hypo Thenar left hand 4"" x 1"" x 1"" bleeding.

3) An incised wound over the right arm upper end 3"" x 1"" x 1"" bleeing.

4) An incised wound over the left thumb palmar surface 1 """" x """" x """" bleeding.

5) Tenderness over the left knee.

The above extract of injuries reflects the graveness of the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 during the attack. P.Ws.11 and 12 opine that these

grave injuries would have been caused only by using deadly weapons. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 in the light of the documentary evidence,

viz., accident registers (Exs.P15 and 16) and Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and 18) show that both the Conductor (P.W.1) and

Driver (P.W.2) sustained minimum of 5 to 6 injuries which would show that P.Ws.1 to 4 had sufficient time to see the accused attacking P.Ws.1

and 2 after the light was switched on by P.W.2. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.1 to 4 could not have

identified the accused as though the entire occurrence had taken place in the dim light is liable to be rejected.

10.17. Of course, there may be discrepancies with regard to the description of the weapons used for the commission of the crime in question as

pointed by Mr. Rajkumar Robert. But, once the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborate with the opinion of the Doctor (P.W.12) that the

injuries would have been caused by using the deadly weapons marked as M.Os.10 to 13, in my considered opinion, the minor discrepancies and

variations in describing the weapons in Ex.P.1, and by P.Ws.1 to 4 shall not have any credibility to prevail over the case of the prosecution.

10.18. Assuming the earliest statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1), as well as the F.I.R. (Ex.P19) consist of some minor discrepancies with reference to the

overt act by the accused, the same would not, by itself, vitiate the case of the prosecution. It is a trite law that F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of

evidence, and it is relevant only in judging the veracity of prosecution case. The value to be attached to the FIR depends on the facts of each case.

Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the F.I.R. and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. F.I.R. need not contain details

of the occurrence as if it were an ""encyclopaedia"" of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the overt acts therein. Non

mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some other facts in the F.I.R. is not fatal, vide Baldev Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, :

10.19. That apart, the evidence of the chance witness (P.W.5), further strengthens the case of the prosecution as the travel of P.W.5 in the lorry

which came from the opposite direction at the time of occurrence was clearly spoken by P.Ws.1 to 4.

10.20. The lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, for not sending the material objects, such as cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2),

white shirt (M.O.3), checked lungi (M.O.4), identity card (M.O.6), currencies (M.Os.20, 22, 24 & 26) and tickets (M.Os.21, 23, 25 and 27),

for finger print test to connect the accused in the crime and for not sending the blood stained weapons (M.Os.10 to 13) for Serologist''s report

would not benefit the accused, as the efforts of the Criminal Court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts, unless the doubt is of a

reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, as held in STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TEJARAM

reported in Hence, the absence of the report for the finger prints of the accused on the material objects or the absence of Serologist''s report with

respect to the blood stains found on the material objects M.Os.10 to 13 could not be a justification to reject the evidence of the injured eye

witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), whose evidence corroborates with that of the other eye witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 4) who travelled in the same bus,

Mahazar witness (P.W.7), investigating Officer (P.W.14), and the medical evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 read with the accident registers (Exs.P.15

and 16) and Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and 18).

10.21. In view of the foregoing discussion, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable

doubt and therefore, I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error in convicting and sentencing so as to justify any interference by this

Court.

In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.