Evidence – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of – When fatal – As per the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused (now deceased) broke into the house of PW-1 and PW-3 to commit robbery when they were not at home and killed their old mother – However, this was witnessed by PW-1 when she returned home at around 12:30 in the afternoon but, she could not enter the room as it was locked from inside – On raising alarm, PW-2, a neighbour came and they both peeped through the window of the bedroom and saw the incident – TIP not conducted, PW-1 and PW-2 identified accused in Court – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons – Acquittal reversed by High Court – Correctness:
Held: As per the eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 they saw the two accused strangulating PW-1’s mother by pulling both ends of the rope – However, their evidence does not corroborate with the post mortem report – The report does suggest that the deceased was indeed strangulated to death but, it could not be in the manner as seen by PW-1 and PW-2 as the ligature mark extended only from one angle of the mandible to the other and no such mark was seen at the back of the neck – Absence of any reasonable explanation as to how PW-1 reached her house in a short span of time of 21/2 hours, after leaving home at 10:00 AM, creates doubt on the prosecution story – Furthermore, appellant was not known to any of the witnesses and more pertinently, the two eyewitnesses – Co-accused was related to the complainant and was thus, known to the eyewitnesses – Hence, there was no requirement of TIP as regards him – But, the appellant was a total stranger to PW-1 and PW-2 – His name ‘Vishwanatha’ came to their knowledge, only after co-accused called him by name exhorting him to run – The identification of an accused in court is acceptable without a prior TIP and absence of TIP may not be fatal for the prosecution – It would depend on facts of each case – In a case where the identity of the accused is not known and TIP has not been conducted, the court has to see if there was any description of the accused either in the FIR or in any of the statement of witness recorded during the investigation – There was none in the present case – There were six persons by the name of ‘Vishwanatha’ in the locality and when there is doubt on the presence of the two star witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 (who identified the accused), the identity of the present appellant remained in doubt – Not safe to convict the appellant solely only on the basis of the testimony of PW1 and PW2 – Prosecution not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt – Impugned judgment set aside as far as it relates to the conviction of the appellant. [Paras 13-17, 19]
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.