Penal Code, 1860 – ss.395, 397 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25 – Case of the prosecution that the appellant participated in the dacoity where a bus carrying passengers was looted by eight armed men – However, only two including the appellant were tried – Appellant convicted, co-accused acquitted – Conviction of the appellant upheld by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Neither the FIR nor the statements of eyewitnesses named the appellant or any other accused – Though the TIP for identifying the appellant was conducted and the appellant was identified by two out of three witnesses, but those three witnesses were not examined during trial – Thus, the TIP report, which could be used to either contradict or corroborate the witnesses is of no evidentiary value – Best evidence such as that of the driver, conductor and cleaner of the Bus, who all participated in the TIP was withheld without giving good reason – The dock identification by a solitary witness (PW-9), that too a police personnel fails to inspire confidence to sustain conviction of the appellant particularly, in absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of any looted article either from, or at the instance of the appellant – Manner in which the arrest was effected is also doubtful – Guilt of the appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Judgments of the trial court and High Court set aside – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, acquitted. [Paras 11, 15, 17, 24, 25] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) not substantive evidence but only corroborative – Purpose of TIP, enumerated – Non-examination of witness who identified the accused in TIP – Effect:
Held: Once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness – If the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification – Unless the witness enters the witness box and is cross-examined it can not be ascertained as to on what basis he identified the person or the article – Because it is quite possible that before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.