Test Identification Parade Doesn't Have Much Value When Accused Is Already Known To Witness : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for the offence of murder. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the High Court.The offence allegedly took place on 22.10.2008. As per prosecution case, one Purushothaman was murdered by the appellant Udayakumar, who was allegedly hired by...
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for the offence of murder. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the High Court.
The offence allegedly took place on 22.10.2008. As per prosecution case, one Purushothaman was murdered by the appellant Udayakumar, who was allegedly hired by the other two accused for committing the murder. The High Court, while acquitting two other men who were accused as the conspirators, sustained the conviction of Udayakumar,
The Supreme Court noted that there was discrepancy in the evidence of the Prosecution Witness (PW1) who claimed to have identified Udaykumar. While PW1 said that he identified the accused before the judge during the test identification parade, the investigating officer said that the first identification was done in the police station.
"If the identity of the accused was already in the knowledge of the police or the witnesses, then we only wonder, where would the question of conducting the identification parade arise?", the bench wondered.
"We reiterate that the entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source", the bench observed. Reference was made to Heera v State of Rajasthan (2007) 10 SC 175.
The bench also stated that the investigation parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness.
The bench further held that if the theory of conspiracy was disbelieved and the alleged conspirators were acquitted, "there was no basis or reason to have upheld the conviction of A-2, more so, when on the basis of the very same set of evidence led by the prosecution, the principle conspirators involved in the crime were acquitted".
"Unfortunately in the impugned judgement, there is neither any reasoning, nor any appreciation of evidence on record. We cannot convict the accused on the basis of the principles of preponderance of probability. It is our duty to make sure that miscarriage of justice is avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused", the Court added.
“In the present case before us, we find neither the chain of evidence to have been completely established nor the circumstances, conclusively pointing towards the guilt of commission of crime by the Appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”, the Court noted while setting aside the murder conviction.
Case Title- Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242
Murder Trial - Supreme Court acquits a man setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court.
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 9 - Test Identification Parade- The entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source- investigation parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness - Followed Heera v State of Rajasthan (2007) 10 SC 175,Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State, (2016) 11 SCC 265,State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 - Para 9