Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance – Nonconduct of Test Identification Parade-TIP, effect on prosecution case – On facts, in a brutal murder of a teenager girl allegedly by the main accused and co-accused, conviction and sentence u/s. 302/34, ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC – Appeal by the co-accused, wherein the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, in absence of TIP, where accused is a stranger to a witness and there was dock identification made by witness in court during trial – Correctness:
Held: In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness – On facts, TIP was not conducted – All the prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the court were not known to the appellant – They had not seen the appellant prior to the said incident – He was a stranger to both of them – More importantly, both of them have seen the appellant on the date of the crime and that too from a distance while he was wearing a monkey cap which majorly covers the face – Under these circumstances, TIP had become necessary particularly when both the accused, who are alleged to have committed this murder were arrested within two days – No explanation whatsoever has been given by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer as to why TIP was not conducted – High Court also recorded this flaw in the investigation – Not conducting a TIP was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP, the dock identification of the appellant will always remain doubtful – Doubt always belongs to the accused – Prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt – Not conducting TIP is fatal for the prosecution – Identification of the accused before the court ought to have been corroborated by the previous TIP which was not done – Thus, the identity of the appellant is in doubt – Appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of a very doubtful evidence as to the appellant’s identity – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302/34, s. 449, 404 and 201 r/w
302. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16]
Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance of: Held: Test identification parade-TIP is only a part of Police investigation – Identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence – Substantive piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in Court during trial – In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness – In a given case, TIP may not be necessary – Non-conduct of a TIP may not prejudice the case of the prosecution or affect the identification of the accused – It would all depend upon the facts of the case – It is possible that the evidence of prosecution witness who has identified the accused in a court is of a sterling nature, thus TIP may not be necessary – It is the task of the investigation team to see the relevance of a TIP in a given case. [Paras 12, 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.