minal Appeal No 483 of 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 19th February 1976 of the Madras High Court in Crl
A No 66975 and Reference Trial No 46 of 1975 Frank Anthony section C Agarwal P Ramachandran Aruneshwar Gupta and Sushil Kumar for the Appellant
A P Rangam for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated February 19 1976 convicting appellant Ramanathan of offences under section 302 on two counts section 307 and section 460 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act
The High Court has confirmed the sentence of death for the offences under section 302 and has upheld the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under section 307 of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under section 460 and of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act
Nataraj an deceased who was a well to do yarn merchant of Nagercoil used to live there in his own house in Kumari Colony
His wife Smt
Nagammal PW 1 used to live with him in that house
Their second son Varadarajan deceased was 21 years old and was studying in fourth year in the Medical College at Palayam Kottai
As September 19 1974 was Vinayakchaturthi day he took leave of absence for a day and came to his father s house in Nagercoil on September 18 1974
On the following day September 19 1974 Natarajan returned home from his shop in his car at about 9 pm
His driver parked the car in the compound of his house locked the gate of the compound wall delivered its key to Smt
Nagammal and went away
The other servants also went away at about 6 pm as usual
Nagammal locked the outer gate of her house as well as the grill door of the front verandah
Natarajan his wife Smt
Nagammal and their son Varadarajan took their food at about 10 pm
Varadarajan went to the office room which was adjacent to the bed room of his parents for study
Nagammal retired to
her bed room and went to sleep
She woke up and went to the bath room at about 130 am
She saw that Varadarajan was sleeping on the cot which was there for the purpose in the office room
One leaf of the door of that room was open at that time
Nagammal went back to her bed room and slept there leaving one of the doors of her bed room open
A zero watt bulb was burning in her bed room
It is alleged that at about 230 am she heard a loud cry from the direction of her son s room and thought that he was shouting in his dream
But she heard the sound of a shot immediately thereafter
She woke up her husband Natarajan and asked him to go and look in 696 Varadarajan s room
Natarajan opened the door leading to the drawing ball which was adjacent to his bed room
Nagammal heard the sound of another gun shot
She went towards the drawing ball and saw appellant Ramanathan standing at a distance of about 1 12 feet from the door of the drawing hall and firing his pistol at her husband who was standing near the eastern window of that room Smt
Nagammal raised an alarm shouting ayyo
Her husband moved to catch the appellant who went near the western portion of the drawing hall and fired at Smt
Nagammal
The shot grazed her body just above her stomach
Natarajan caught hold of the hands of the appellant and there was a tussle between them
The appellant shot at Natarajan repeatedly
Natarajan fell down but rose up
He dashed against the wall of the drawing hall
Nagammal went to his rescue and the appellant shot at her stomach
She turned to go to the other room to use the telephone but the appellant hit her with the pistol on her head
The appellant then pressed the head of her husband with his pistol and went towards the front verandah
Nagammal again shouted  ayyo and ran after him
She put on the verandah lights and the front light of her house and shouted ayyo and cried that the thief was running away after shooting
She found that one of the grill doors of the verandah was open at that time
The appellant ran through it picked up a bag from near Natarajan s car scaled over the front compound wall and ran away on the road
Rajagopal PW 2 who was living in the opposite house heard the reports of the shots and Smt
Nagammal s shouts and came running so quickly that according to him he was able to see the appellant when he was getting down from the front verandah of the house and was scaling the compound wan
Laxmi who lived near Rajagopal s house also reached there
They seated Natarajan on a sofa in the drawing hall
Muthu PW 3 who lived only three houses away and was a relation of Natarajan also heard the shots and Smt
Nagammal s shout for help and reached there
He immediately brought Dr Samson PW 13 at about 315 am
He examined Varadarajan on his cot in the room and found that he had died
He went to the drawing hall and found Natarajan sitting on a sofa with gun shot injuries on his chest and some injuries on his head
He was however not able to talk and was sitting with a stunned appearance and was bleeding
Dr Samson found that Smt
Nagammal had also received gun shot injuries
As it was a medico legal case the matter was referred to the Police and Muthu PW 3 took Natarajan and Smt
Nagammal in his car to the hospital of Dr Balasundram PW 14
First aid was given to Smt
Nagammal while Natarajan was taken to the operation room
Inspector Narayana Nair PW 30 reached there and recorded the statement exhibit P 1 of Smt
Nagammal at about 430 am and registered the case
Nagammal narrated the incident in her aforesaid statement Ex P 1 and specifically stated that the culprit was aged 30 or 35 years he appeared to be stout and seemed to have a beard
She categorically recorded that although his name was not known to her she could identify him if seen
697 Dr Balasundaram PW 14 x rayed the injuries of Natarajan and performed an operation
He gave blood transfusion and intravenous fluids but Natarajan succumbed to his injuries on September 24 1974
Dr Balasundaram had examined the injuries of Smt
Nagammal PW 1 on September 20 1974 at about 430 am and found that two of her injuries had been caused by a bullet another injury by the grazing of a bullet and yet another injury by a hit with the butt head of a revolver
She was taken to the Government hospital on September 24 1974 but was brought back to Dr Balasundaram s nursing home and was discharged on September 25 1974
Investigation of the case was taken up by Inspector Narayana Nair PW 30
He found blood stains at several places on the cement floor of the front verandah and the rooms of Natarajan s house
He found three spent bullets in the drawing hall and one in the bed room
He also recovered the lock which was lying near the sofa of the drawing hall as well as a screw driver
He found some bullet marks also and prepared the inquest reports
He searched the house of the appellant at Nagercoil on September 20 1974 at 10 pm after sending prior information to the Magistrate but did not find him there
He sent special search parties to search for him
Deputy Inspector of Police Balasubramaniam PW 26 searched for the appellant at several places in Madras from September 28 1974 to October 5 1974 but did not find him
He traced him to several places in Delhi from October 7 1974 to October 19 1974 but to no avail
He learnt that the appellant was at Madras and left Nagercoil for Madras where he learnt that the appellant was in Hyderabad
He reached Hyderabad on November 11 1974 and learnt that the appellant was in patient in Sarojini Eye Hospital Hyderabad
He went there and arranged for his discharge from that hospital
He was ultimately arrested on November 14 1974 by Inspector Sadasivan Nair PW 31
An identification parade was held soon after on November 16 1974 by Kanagasabapathy PW 27 Judicial Magistrate
lie was correctly identified by Smt
Nagammal PW 1 Rajagopal PW 2 Samraj PW 9 and Vasantha PW 10
The Investigating Officer took the help of the ballistics expert also
Ultimately the appellant was charge sheeted and was tried and convicted as aforesaid
It has been argued by Mr Anthony learned counsel for the appellant that Smt
Nagammal PW 1 knew the appellant before the incident as he used to reside in Nagercoil and there were civil and criminal cases between him and her husband
Our attention has particularly been invited to the copy of a notice sent by the appellant to Natarajan on December 24 26  1969 in which he had stated that when he came to see him be was told by his wife that he Natarajan had gone to Trivandrum that he would come in the night and that the would fix the price and complete the transaction of the property which was the bone of contention between the appellant and the deceased
We find however that when such a suggestion was made to Smt
Nagammal PW 1 she categorically denied having seen the appellant prior to the date of the incident
She in fact stated that while she had heard his name she had not met him before the incident
10 315SC1578 698 It has been argued and has not been disputed that the aforesaid notice was not exhibited or proved during the course of the trial and does not really form part of the record
The High Court has all the same taken the view that even if it were assumed that Smt
Nagammal PW 1 saw the appellant on one occasion in December 1969 at her house in the casual manner referred to in the notice it was quite likely that she did not note hisfeatures and may not have remembered them after a lapse of morethan four years
Then there is the further fact that the appellant hashimself stated that he did not even know that her house was situated in Kumari Colony Nagercoil
So if that was the position regarding his contact with the house of the husband of Smt
Nagammal the High Court cannot be blamed for arriving at the conclusion that she did not know the appellant at the time of the incident and had to describe the assailant with reference to his physiognomy
An ancillary argument has been made that as Natarajan deceased undoubtedly knew the appellant the fact that he did not name him to his wife Smt
Nagammal PW 1 his neighbour Rajagopal PW 2 his relation Muthuswami PW 3 Dr Samson PW 13 or to Dr Balasundaram PW 14 even though he died after four days of the incident is sufficient to rule out the possibility that it was the appellant who had committed the murders
It has also been argued that if Natarajan could shout ayyo at least once as stated by his wife he could as well shout his name at the time when he saw him for the first time during the course of the incident
We have gone through the statements of all these witnesses and we find that all of them were questioned in this respect and have given categorical answers
Nagammal PW 1 has stated that her husband was not able to talk on account of the shock
Rajagopal PW 2 has stated that when he reached the house of the deceased be found that there was blood on the injuries which had been caused to him by gun shots he was stupefied and did not talk about anything
When he was cross examined further he stated that when he saw Natarajan for the first time he was in a stupor and that he did not say anything about the person who had attacked him
As the witness reached the place immediately on bearing the gun shots so much so that according to him he was able to see the appellant when he was getting down from the front verandah of the house and was scaling the compound wall his statement is important and fully corroborates the statement of Smt
Nagammal PW 1 Muthuswami PW 3 also reached the place of occurrence soon after on hearing the shouts of his aunt Smt
Nagammal PW 1 He has stated that be asked Natarajan what had happened but he was in a shock and never replied
Muthuswami PW 3 reached the house of Dr Samson PW 13 at about 315 am and both of them returned to the house of the deceased in about 5 or 7 minutes
Dr Samson PW 13 has stated that he found Natarajan deceased sitting on a sofa cum bed he had gun shot injuries on his chest and some injuries on his head and that be was not able to talk to me and was sitting with a stunned appearance 
The witness asked Natarajan what had happened but he did not reply
Then there is the statement of Dr Balasundaram PW 14 who 699 examined all the injuries of Natarajan at about 415 am
He has categorically stated that Natarajan was not in a position to speak at that time and that he asked questions to him but he could not respond
The witness has further stated that Natarajan was unable to speak from the time of his admission in his Nursing Home that he was not res ponding even to painful stimuli even though he could sit and that the same condition continued till his death
The witness denied the suggestion that Natarajan regained consciousness
and was able to talk
He has stated that he was dazed and even though there was no serious injury on his head there may be other reasons for which he was not able to talk even though his centres of speech were not affected
It would thus appear that the High Court has taken all the relevant evidence into consideration in taking the view that Natarajan was not able to name the appellant at the time of the incident or thereafter
Dr Natarajan PW 15 who was Professor of Forensic Medicine performed the postmortem examination on Natarajan s body
He has mentioned the numerous injuries on the dead body
In particular he has stated that the right lobe of the lever was pale and cirrhotic with laceration in the middle of the right lobe and contusion around
There was another laceration in the right lobe of the lever
The 4th rib was found cut and was absent
There was communited fracture of the 5th rib above the middle portion with a number of bits of the bone along with clots of blood
There were fractures of the 6th and 8th ribs also and there was a long contusion
Then there was another equally long contusion on the right parietal pleura along with ribs Nos
1 to 6 in the middle
There was a very long contusion along ribs 1 to 8 on the left side measuring 20 cm
x 6 cm
in the left parietal pleaura
The witness has stated the serious condition of the lungs and has stated that Natarajan died of haemorrhagic shock resulting from the injuries sustained by him
The brain surface vessels had congested and the cut sections of the brain disclosed patchial haemorrhages
The injuries which were inflicted on Natarajan were therefore very serious and we are unable to think that the High Court went wrong in reading the evidence while arriving at its finding that Natarajan was not in a position to name his assailant
It has further been argued in this connection that there was no sufficient light which could enable Smt
Nagammal PW 1 and Rajagopal PW 2 to identify the appellant
It is true that there was no light in the drawing hall or in the office room where Varadarajan was sleeping or in the front grill verandah from which the appellant is alleged to have broken into the house
Nagammal PW 1 and Raja gopal PW 2 have however stated that two mercury street lights each having two tubes were burning in front of the verandah and it is not disputed that the distance between them and the verandah was not more than 29 feet
Rajarathinam PW 8 has stated that he had put on the street light switch on the preceding evening at 630 pm and that all the three street lights on Kumari Colony road were burning
Moreover Smt
Nagammal PW 1 has stated that the street light was flowing through the half open front door of the drawing hall and that a white zero watt bulb was burning in her bed room
She has also 700 stated that there was a ventilator just above the window of the drawing hall through which the light was coming
As has been stated the verandah had a grill and even if Mr Anthony s argument is accepted that the shutters of the window of the drawing hall had been closed and the street light did not pass through them the High Court cannot be blamed for holding that there was sufficient light to enable Smt
Nagammal to see and notice the features of the appellant
An effort was made to argue that as Smt
Nagammal did not mention in her statement exhibit P I that her assailant was wearing a turban the description was quite insufficient and should have been rejected
We have examined Smt
Nagammal s statement in exhibit P 1
She has stated that the assailant was about 30 or 35 years old he appeared to be stout hefty  and seemed to have a beard
The High Court has taken the view that the description was satisfactory and we see no justification why it should be rejected merely because Smt
Nagammal did not state at that time that her assailant was wearing a turban
Her explanation that she could not make a mention of the turban in exhibit P I because of anguish cannot be said to be unsatisfactory
Then there is the further fact that a mention had been made of the turban even at the time of the inquest report which was drawn up the same day
It would thus appear that when the other description in exhibit P 1 was quite satisfactory it could not have been rejected merely because Smt
Nagammal did not state that the assailant was wearing a turban
The prosecution has examined Smt
Nagammal PW 1 and Rajagopal PW 2 as the main witnesses against the appellant
We have made a mention of the description of the assailant given by Smt
Nagammal in her report exhibit P 1 and its reiteration in her statement in the trial court with the further statement that the assailant was wearing a turban at the time of the incident
In both the statements she claimed that she would be able to identify him on seeing him
As has been stated there is no reason to disbelieve her statement that she had not seen him on any earlier occasion
The incident involved two murders and the firing of at least eight shots including the two which hit Smt
Nagammal from close proximity
All that must have given sufficient opportunity to Smt
Nagammal to notice the features of her assailant who was out to destroy her family
There was sufficient light to enable her to do so and it therefore remained for the Investigating Officer to arrange for a test identification parade
We shall deal with that aspect of the evidence in a while
Rajagopal PW 2 was the Vice Chairman of the Nagercoil Municipality and was living just across the road at a distance of not more than 40 feet from the house of the deceased
He has stated that he immediately got up on hearing the two gun shots and put on the light of his house
He went and saw both in fro it and backward but could not see anything at his house
He again went to bed
Two minu tes later be heard 4 or 5 shots from Natarajan s house
He immediately put on the light of the drawing ball of his house and came to this front verandah
He heard Smt
Nagammal PW 1 raising an alarm and saw the appellant getting down from the front varandah of her house 701 going north towards her car shed and then scaling the front compound wall of her house and jumping and running away towards the north of the main road
The witness did not know the appellant earlier but he saw that he was having a beard and had tied a circular turban
He clearly stated that he could see him because of the tube lights and which were burning at that time and the light in front of Natarajan s varandah
The investigating Officer therefore Wanted to test his capacity for identification also as soon as the culprit was arrested
It will be recalled that the appellant could be arrested only on November 14 1974 and it is disputed that a test identification parade was held soon after on November 16 1974
It cannot therefore be said that there was any delay in holding the parade
The parade was held by Kanagasahapathy PW27 who was a Judicial Magistrate at Nagercoil
He has stated that he selected eleven under trial prisoners from the sub jail for the test identification parade who were almost of the same size and complexion as the appellant and that as the appellant was having a slight beard three of the selected under trial prisoners were persons having slight beards just like the accused
It appears from the memorandrum of the identification parade that the persons who were mixed with the appellant were persons of the same status or position in life
The appellant was allowed to change his place or number of each occasion when a witness was called to identify him
The Magistrate has given all the details of the identification parade and has stated that the appellant was correctly identified by Smt
Nagammal
and Rajagopal as well as by the two other witnesses
No effective argument has been made why the evidence of the Lest identification parade should not have been believed by the trial court and the High Court in these circumstances
An attempt was made to argue that the witnesses were able to identify the appellant because his photograph had appeared in a local newspaper on November 16 1974
Nagammal PW1 has however stated that she was not in the habit of reading a newspaper and did not even know about the publication of any such issue
Rajagopal PW2 was also cross examined in this respect and he has also stated that he had not noticed any such publication
It cannot therefore be said that the parade was a farce or was a got up affair
It has however been argued further that as only the appellant was wearing a white dhoti and a white shirt the test identification parade was of no consequence and the High Court erred in taking a contrary view
It may be pointed out that when such a suggestion was made to the Magistrate who held the test identification parade he denied it and it cannot be said that there was any such infirmity in the parade
There is also satisfactory evidence to prove that the appellant was not wearing spectacles as his pair was given to another prisoner before the witnesses were called in for his identification
Mr Anthony has however argued that as the prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that the appellant was kept ba parda  the test identification parade was of no consequence because of that fatal infir 703 The appellant cannot therefore derive any benefit from the decision in Dhokal Singh s case which has been adequately re examined in Ranjita s case
Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time for the object of placing a suspect in a line up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime
This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye witnesses of the incident but they claim that although they did not know him earlier they could recall his features in sufficient details and would be able to identify him if and when they happened to see him
The holding of a test identification in such cases is as much in the interest of the investigating agency or the prosecution as in the interest of the suspect or the accused
For while it enables the investigating officer to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claim to have seen the perpetrator of the crime and their capacity to identify him and thereby fill the gap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit it saves the suspect or the accused from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the self same witnesses during the course of the trial
The line up of the suspect in a test identification parade is a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of witnesses in such cases and has worked well in actual practice
In the present case where there was satisfactory evidence to prove that at least two of the witnesses emphatically claimed from the very beginning of the incident that they bad noticed the culprit and had in fact described him and had claimed that they could identify him the holding of a test identification parade was absolutely necessary
The fact that such a parade was held within two days of the arrest of the appellant and was held by a Judicial Magistrate with all the necessary precautions and arrangements leaves no room for doubt trial the evidence of the test identification was of considerable importance
The appellant knew about that evidence from the date the parade was held and if he wanted to demolish it it was for him to do so by effective cross examination of the witnesses andor by examining hisown witnesses in rebuttal
As the appellant has not succeeded in doing so it is futile to contend that we should reject this important piece of evi dence merely because the prosecution did not lead evidence of the nature referred to in Dhokal Singh s case supra
The trial court and the High Court have placed reliance on the statements of Smt
Nagammal and Rajagopal and have found that the identification parade was held properly and fairly
No satisfactory argument has been advanced why we should interfere with that finding
it has next been argued that although the evidence of the prosecution showed that eight shots were fired at the time of the incident the High Court erred in accepting the opinion of Ramiah PW23 who was the Fire Arms Expert of the Tamilnadu Forensic Science  and Chemical Laboratory Madras that all of them were fired from one and the same fire arm
It has been urged that as no empties were found at the place of the incident the eight shots could not have been fired from a 704 pistol and the expert s opinion that they could have been fired from a revolver should not have been accepted as even according to him such revolvers with eight chambers were rare
It has also been argued that the evidence of the expert could not have been accepted because he did not take photographs for the purpose of comparing the land and groove markings on the bullets and contended himself by their com parison under a comparison microscope
We do not think there is any real basis for this argument
Even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that the crime revolver bad only six chambers and an eight chamber revolver was not available for the commission of the murders there was nothing to prevent the appellant from reloading the revolver after firing the first two shots on hearing which Smt
Nagamal PW1 came from threshold of her bed room to the drawing hall
Ramiah PW23 has stated that if the person using the revolver bad been an expert he would have required about a minute to reload it
The prosecution has led satisfactory evidence to prove that the appellant was an expert who had taken regular training in the use of firerms and had passed it with credit
If it would take a minute for an expert to reload all the six chambers it would have taken less than that time in replacing the two cartridges which were used in the first two shots
As it is the evidence on the record does not exclude the possibility of such a reloading and when an assasin who has received training in the use of firearm trespasses at night into the house of his enemies with the intention of murdering them it would be quite natural for him to replace the discharged cartridges
Much would not therefore turn on the question whether the appellant used a six or an eight chamber revolver in the commission of the crime In support of his argument regarding examination under the comparison microscope without the aid of photographs Mr Anthony has placed reliance on The State of Gujarat vs Adam Fateh Mohmed Umativa and others2
In that case the expert did not take photographs of the misfired cartridges and admitted that the photographs were necessary for comparison
In that context this Court made a reference to Burrad s The identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics 3rd edition 1956 page 173 where it has been stated that any evidence of identification Which is unsupported by photographs cannot be regarded as being anything morel than an expression of opinion and held that it did not establish that the test cartridges and the empty cartridges were fired from the same weapon or that the misfired cartridge was fired from the same weapon
That was therefore a different case which has decided on its own facts
It also appears that there was no evidence in that case to show that the comparison had been with the help of a comparison microscope
The evidence of the expert therefore suffered from an inherent infirmity and was not satisfactory
Counsel for the appellant however tried to refer to some observations from Hatcher s Fireams Investigation Identification and Evidence for the purpose of showing the importance of photography and the use of enlarged photographs in such cases
Hatcher has devoted a whole chapter to photography in investigation of firearms crimes and 1 705 while discussing the history of firearms identification he has pointed out the reasons why consideration importance was given to such photographs for the visual satisfaction of the Judge and the jury
But while referring to the importance of photographs taken directly through the comparison microscope he has devoted a paragraph to the decline in the use of micro comparison photographs and has gone on to state as follows There are also photographic reasons for the almost entire abandonment of this method of presentation
Unfortunately the lenses of a camera do not adjust in the way that the human eye adjusts
The depth of field is ex tremely limited
Unlike the human eve a photographic film has far less tolerance to variations in lighting
Photographs are almost always unsatisfactory to the Expert who has made a positive comparison through the microscope
You photograph only what you can see at one single time
The camera cannot move along the surface of bullets to pick up identity after identity
 The position has been stated as follows in section 178 page 260 of Ehrlich and Jones Photographic Evidence 1967 edition
 Usually more can be seen through a microscope than can be photographed through it
There are several reasons for this superiority of visual perception
In the first place the eye looking through a microscope can scan the field and change focus at different points of the field
In addition the eye can see any movement present and with the aid of mental filling in is able to perceive form and detail that may not be recorded photographically
Moreover the lens system of the microscope produces a curved fields this works out nicely for the eye since the retina is curved but does not work so well photographically since the film plane is flat
Due to this latter defect not all of the field will be photographed to the same degree of sharp focus and some distortion may be produced in the photograph
 It cannot therefore be doubted that a comparison microscope is the most important and most widely used scientific instrument in comparing the crime cartridge with the test cartridge
Such microscope are of various types but they have been described as follows in Volume I of Mathews s Firarms Identification at page 38 A comparison microscope consists essentially of two compound microscopes having identical optical system so that they give the same magnification connected by an optical bridge containing a combination of prisms such that by viewing two separate objects one under each microscope through a single eyepiece the two objects may be compared by bringing the images of parts of each into juxtaposition
 It has further been stated that when the desired condition is attained for purpose of comparison the bullets are said to be matched and correct opinion can be given thereon
706 It is true that there his been considerable difference of opinion amongst investigators regarding the use of photographs in a court for the purpose of illustrating the matching of the markings and while it may be that microscopic photographs when taken with due care and in the best of conditions may enable the evidence to be placed on the record in a visible form it cannot be denied that a court would not be justified in rejecting the opinion of an expert who has examined the markings under the comparison microscope simply for the reason that he has not thought it necessary to take the photographs
It is therefore not possible for us to reject the exidence of Ramuiah PW 23 who has categorically stated that he had compared the land and grovee markings on the bullets under a comparson microscope simply because he did not think it necessary to take the photographs
It has next been argued by Mr Anthony that the appellant could not possibly have committed the murders as he had written a letter to the Magistrate informing him that he was involved in two motor cycle accidents in 1948 and 1963 three car accidents in 1906 1970 and 1974
and had been injured in 1969 when a constable stamped on his leg and had lost his vision in the accident etc
Reference in this connection has also been made to the statement of the Investigating Officer showing that the accused was brought to the Court of Session by supporting him with an arm and to the fact that he found by the police in
the Sarojini Eye Hospital after the present incident
We find that a similar argument was urged for the consideration of the trial court as well as the High Court but it was rejected for satisfactory reasons
Sreenivasan PW 16 who was the Inspector incharge of the Civilian Rifle Training Centre at Nagercoil has stated that the appellant was one of the members of the Centre who received training under him from January 2 1972 to March 12 1972 and passed the test having secured a high percentage of marks
The witness has stated that the appellant was in a fit state of health that his vision was all right and that he could shoot the rifle by triggering it only with his left hand
He has further stated that the appellant used to take aim with his left eye and press the trigger with his left forefinger and that a person who knows bow to fire a rifle can also fire a revolver
There is therefore no occasion for us to re examine the finding of the two courts regarding the ability of the appellant to commit the crimes
An attempt has also been made to argue that there was no justification for the High Court to take into consideration the evidence regarding the movement of the appellant after the occurrence and that be did not in fact abscond and his statement that he had gone to Madras to see off Subramania Thevar s son on September 20 1974 as he was leaving for America should have been accepted
This argument is also of no consequence in view of the detailed statement of Deputy Inspector Balasubramanian PW 26 who was placed on special duty in the months of September October and November 1974 to trace out the appellant
The prosecution has examined some other witnesses also regarding the movements of the appellant but even the statement of Balasubramaniam PW 26 is sufficient to justify the High Court s view in the matter
707 The prosecution has led evidence to prove the motive for the crime and it has been argued that the High Court erred in taking the view that the dispute in regard to the resale of the coconut tope was a burning issue between the appellant and the deceased at the time of the incident
Even if the other evidence on the record is left out of consideration there can be no doubt that the deceased had purchased the coconut tope from the appellant s brother and the appellant was not only challenging his possession but was pressing him for a resale
The evidence relating to the civil and criminal cases between the parties justifies the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which we have no doubt is essentially correct
It has lastly been argued that although a number of fingerprints were obtained by the Investigating Officer and others the High Court did not take into consideration the fact that those prints did not compare with the fingerprints of the appellant
It has been pointed out that the High Court erred in thinking that the fingerprints of Varadarain were got obtained by the police even though the inquest report showed that the prints had been taken
It is true that the evidence on the record goes to show that a number of fingerprints were obtained during the course of the investigation and it may well be that the identity of the appellant could not be established on that basis but that could not be said to be enough to justify his acquittal when there was overwhelming evidence against him to establish his guilt
It would thus appear that the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance any such argument as would justify this Court s interference with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court against the appellant
The appeal fails and is dismissed
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 302 on two counts 307 and 460 IPC and sentenced to death by the trial court for illegally entering a residential house and causing two murders by shooting
He was noticed by the deceased Natrajan s wife and neighbour who identified him in a test parade
The High Court confirmed the death sentence
The appellant inter alia challenged the propriety of his identification by the witnesses and also the identification of the fire arm used for the murders
Dismissing the appeal the Court
HELD  1
Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time for the object of placing a suspect in a line up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime
This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye witnesses of the incident but they claim that although they did not know him earlier they could recall his features in sufficient details and would be able to identify him if and when they happened to see him
The holding of a test identification in such cases is as much in the interest of the investigating agency or the prosecution as in the interest of the suspect or the accused
For while it enables the investigating officer to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claim to have seen the perpetrator of the crime and their capacity to identify him and thereby fill the Zap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit it saves the suspect or the accused from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the self same witnesses during the course of the trial
The line up of the suspect in a test identification parade is therefore a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of witnesses in such cases and has worked well in actual practice
703 A D 2The argument that the evidence regarding the holding of a test identification parade would be of no consequence and would suffer from a fatal defect if the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the appellant was kept ba parda is not correct
After referring to the decision in Dhokal Singh and Anr
vs The State ILR 1953 3 Raj 762 their Lordships approved of the view taken in State of Rajasthan vs Ranjitha AIR 1962 Raj 78 FB in which the earlier decision in Dhokal Singh s case was adequately reexamined
701 H 702 703A 3A comparison microscope is the most important and most widely used scientific instrument in comparing the crime cartridge with the test cartridge but there has been considerable difference of opinion amongst investigators regarding these photographs in a court for the purpose of illustrating the matching of the markings and while it may be that microscopic photographs when taken with the due care and in the best of conditions may enable the evidence to be placed on the record in a visible form a court would not be justified in rejecting the opinion of an expert who has examined the markings under the comparison microscope simply for the reason that he has not thought it necessary to take the photographs
705 F 706 A B 695 The State of Gujarat vs Adam Fateh Mohmed Umative  Ors  differentiated