Jharkhand High Court upholds conviction but converts the death penalty to life imprisonment
State of Jharkhand v. Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da & Anr
Facts
On 2 July 2013, the Superintendent of Police, Pakur, Amarjit Balihar, was travelling from Dumka to Pakur in a white Scorpio vehicle with his personal security officers and driver. At about 2:28 p.m., in a forested area between Jamni and Amtala villages, the convoy was ambushed by armed extremists leading to indiscriminate firing that resulted in the death of the Superintendent of Police and five other police personnel. Five police personnel died on the spot while one succumbed to injuries when he was being shifted to hospital. Three police personnel, including the bodyguard and the driver, sustained grievous injuries but survived the incident.
The assailants also looted the firearms, ammunition, and the bullet-proof jacket of the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on the same day on the basis of the self-statement of the Officer-in-Charge, Kathikund Police Station. Multiple charge-sheets were filed over time. Ultimately, five accused were acquitted, while the present appellants were convicted and sentenced to death. Due to a split verdict in appeal (with one judge acquitting while the other re-affirming death sentence), the matter was placed before a third Judge under Section 392 CrPC.
Legal Issues
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellants?
2. Whether identification by injured witnesses without a Test Identification Parade was reliable?
Legal Reasoning and Holding
The Court, in the present case, held that the occurrence of the crime was conclusively established through medical evidence and the sole issue concerned the identity and involvement of the appellants. The Court also held that the testimony of injured witnesses shall be accorded greater credibility since their presence at the scene of crime was unquestionable and there were no motives for false implications.
The Court rejected the argument that identification was unreliable due to absence of a Test Identification Parade holding that dock identification is substantive evidence, while a parade is merely a corroborative form of evidence. Since the appellants were named promptly in the FIR and identified by injured witnesses, the identification was held reliable.
Furthermore, the statements made by injured personnel to police officers arriving immediately after the incident were treated as corroborative evidence. The Court observed that such statements, made while the witnesses were still under stress and trauma, could not be discarded merely as hearsay. The recovery of the bullet-proof jacket pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act further consolidated the prosecution case.
Therefore, the High Court held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the appellants in the ambush. The testimonies of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, prompt FIR, and recovery of looted articles, were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The death reference was answered in favour of the State and the sentences were upheld.
