Dismissed
State v. Nazbul Hasan @ Jaigam
Delhi HCCRL.L.P./66/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P.…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~34
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State with SI Satyabir Singh, P.S. Jahangirabad.
versus
NAZBUL HASAN @ JAIGAM ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 02.02.2017
Crl. M.A. 1906/2017
Delay condoned.
Application is disposed of.
Crl. L.P. 66/2017
By this petition, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23rd July, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi; whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 392/397/34 IPC.
As per the prosecution, on 30th September, 2013 at about 9:40 am respondent snatched gold chain of the victim PW1-Preeti Arora near Dak Khane Wali Gali, Jammu Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi. Respondent was on a
motorcycle when he snatched the chain. He was sitting on the pillion of that motorcycle driven by an unknown person. Identity of the motorcycle owner could not be fixed during the investigation. It is further the case of prosecution that respondent had fled from the spot with the robbed gold chain. He was arrested on 27th October, 2013 by the Crime Branch, R.K. Puram in another FIR No. 178/13. During the investigation of the said FIR, respondent confessed to have committed 34 other cases, including the present case. Accordingly, respondent was arrested in this case. Gold chain could not be recovered. In the TIP, PW1-Preeti Arora identified the respondent as the same person who had snatched her gold chain. As per the prosecution, PW1 has also identified the respondent in Court.
Trial court has noted that identification of the respondent in TIP as well as in Court was inconsequential as PW1 had admitted, in her crossexamination, that photographs of the respondent were shown to her before the TIP as well as before her statement in Court. Trial court has noted that complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that police had shown her the photographs of accused before TIP and before her evidence in court. Since photographs of the respondent was shown to the PW1, no reliance can be put to such an identification. Reliance has been placed on State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Chamru @ Bhagwandas AIR 2007 SC 2400. In the said judgment, Supreme Court has held as under :-
“We also agree with the contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that the identification proceedings held by S.D.M. Shri Patel (PW1) were only farce. Both Bantu (PW7) and Indu (PW8) admitted in cross examination that the police had shown them the photographs of Chamru. This would render the entire proceedings as useless and conviction cannot be based on such evidence.”
I do not find any perversity in the view taken by the trial court which is a possible view, on the evidence on record and the law governing the field. Accordingly, photograph of respondent was shown to PW1 before the TIP as also before her statement was recorded in the court. No reliance can
be placed on such an identification.
For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
FEBRUARY 02, 2017 ga
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in disbelieving the identification of the accused when police photographs were shown prior to testing identification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chamru @ BhagwandasReferred¶15
AIR 2007 SC 2400 · Who else cites this
STATE
NAZBUL HASAN @ JAIGAM
A.K. PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court