Raja vs State by the Inspector of Police

HELD: 1.1 What is substantive piece of evidence of identification of an accused, is the evidence given during the trial. However, by the time the witnesses normally step into the box to depose, there would be substantial time gap between the date of the incident and the actual examination of the witnesses. If the accused or the suspects were known to the witnesses from before and their identity was never in doubt, the lapse of time may not qualitatively affect the evidence about identification of such accused, but the difficulty may arise if the accused were unknown. In such cases, the question may arise about the correctness of the identification by the witnesses. The lapse of time between the stage when the witnesses had seen the accused during occurrence and the actual examination of the witnesses may be such that the identification by the witnesses for the first time in the box may be difficult for the court to place complete reliance on. In order to lend assurance that the witnesses had, in fact, identified the accused or suspects at the first available opportunity, the TIP which is part of the investigation affords a platform to lend corroboration to the ultimate statements made by the witnesses before the Court. However, what weightage must be given to such TIP is a matter to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. [Para 15] [1198G-H; 11998-A-C]

1.2 If the material on record sufficiently indicates that reasons for “gaining an enduring impression of the identity on the mind and memory of the witnesses” are available on record, the matter stands in a completely different perspective. In such cases even non-holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, in view of the fact that each of the eyewitnesses had suffered number of injuries in the transaction, it can safely be inferred that every one of them had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused to have an enduring impression of the identity of the assailants. It is not as if the witnesses had seen the assailants, in a mob and from some distance. Going by the injuries, the contact with the accused must have been from a close distance. [Para 18] [1205-G-H; 1206-A]

1.3 Furthermore, in the present case all the accused were arrested on 21.06.1999 except Accused No.6 who surrendered before the Magistrate on 22.06.1999 and was remanded to judicial custody. After securing permissions from the Magistrate, the police custody of Accused No.6 was obtained on 01.07.1999 and the TIP was held on 01.07.1999 itself. There was, thus, no delay on part of the investigating machinery in getting TIP held on 01.07.1999. [Para 19] [1206-B]

1.4 With respect to PWs 1, 2 and 3, though there is some room to say that the accused were shown to the witnesses while they were in custody, that part by itself may not be sufficient. Testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 stand on a different footing. [Para 21] [1206-G-H; 1207-A]

1.5 The facts on record thus indicate with clarity that: (a) There was no delay in holding the test identification parade and the delay, if any, was attributable to the fact that one of the accused was in judicial custody whose presence had to be secured only after appropriate permissions from the court; (b) It is not the case of the accused that Accused No.6 was ever shown to any of the witnesses. The test identification parade of Accused No.6 has no infirmity on any count and all the witnesses consistently identified said Accused No.6; (c) Out of five injured witnesses, two had completely denied that either the accused or their photographs were shown to the witnesses, while other three did accept the suggestion in that behalf; and (d) All the witnesses were injured in the transaction with number of injuries. It can, therefore, safely be stated that every one of them had adequate and proper opportunity to observe the features of each of the accused. [Para 22] [1213-C-F]

Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103 – relied on.

Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC

150 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 479 ; Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar (1981) Suppl. SCC 28 ; Subhash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 231 ; Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 368 ; Daya Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 468 : [2001] 1 SCR 1115 – referred to.

2. Considering the totality of circumstances on record, the presence and participation of the Accused Nos.1 to 6, proved through the eyewitness account. There is no infirmity in the evidence of identification by PWs 1 to 5. Consequently, the Appellants were rightly found guilty of the offences with which they were charged. Their conviction and sentence is affirmed. [Para 23, 24, 25] [1213-G; 1214-B]