'Identification In Court Highly Suspect': HP High Court Discharges Two Accused In 2006 Liquor Seizure Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that lapse in establishing the identity of the accused creates a serious discrepancy in criminal cases, especially in the absence of any independent witness to confirm such identification. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:“It was specifically asserted in the rukka that the drivers of the vans ran away from the spot by taking advantage...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that lapse in establishing the identity of the accused creates a serious discrepancy in criminal cases, especially in the absence of any independent witness to confirm such identification.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:“It was specifically asserted in the rukka that the drivers of the vans ran away from the spot by taking advantage of the darkness. They were identified as Billa and Jitru in the light of the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that Sunil Kumar is known as Jitru, and Ashok Kumar is also known as Billa. No person from the locality was examined to prove this fact.”
The petitioners, Sunil Kumar and Ashok Kumar were convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act when in december 2006, the police intercepted two vans carrying a total of 222 bottles of liquor. However the drivers ran away and were allegedly identified as “Billa” and “Jitru”.
They were convicted by the trial court, which was later upheld by the appellate court. Aggrieved, the petitioner's filed revision petition before the High Court.
They contended that there was no proper identification of the drivers, no test identification parade was held, and the vehicle owner denied employing one of the accused.
The Court remarked that the identification of the accused for the first time in court was highly suspectible and test identification parade was necessary before that.
Also, the Court noted that vehicle owner denied employing one of the petitioner as the vehicle's driver.
Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and discharged the accused.
Case Name: Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr.Revision No.252 of 2014
Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General