Separate Identification Parade Not Required If Accused Is Identified In Court By Prosecution Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that if an accused person is identified by the prosecution witnesses before the Court, no separate identification parade is required.Justice V. Srinivas made the observation while partly allowing a man's Criminal Revision plea challenging his conviction for causing death by negligence (under Section 304-A IPC) and one year sentence along with fine. In doing so the court modified the sentence imposed to six months instead of one year.The high court in its order refuted the contention of the accused's counsel that no identification parade was conducted, which would thus vitiate the entire prosecution case.Referring to various Supreme Court pronouncements on this issue, the high court said:"The said contention has no legs to stand in view of the categorical observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dana Yadav (referred to supra) by referring its earlier pronouncements in Dharamvir v. State of M.P., Mehtab Singh v. State of M.P. and Sajjan Singh v. Emperor that “if an accused person is already well known to the witnesses, an identification parade would, of course, be only a waste of time.”In view of the same, the court said that if the accused person was identified by the prosecution witnesses before the Court as the "driver of the crime vehicle by the date of incident", then no separate identification parade is required. BackgroundThe accused, while driving an auto-rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner, had collided with the deceased who was riding his bicycle, causing his death on the spot. The Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada convicted the accused under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000, and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Upon appeal, the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (First Appellate Court), confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. Aggrieved by this, the accused approached the High Court, where he argued that the accident was not due to his rash and negligent driving and that no prosecution witness identified the accused as the driver of the auto.Meanwhile the State argued that testimonies of prosecution witnesses 2-4 categorically shows the rash and negligent driving of the accused in causing the incident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. It was contended that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 7 shows that the accused is the driver of the auto and the testimony of P.W.6 coupled with Exs .P.3 and P.7 show that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. FindingsAfter reviewing the evidence, the High Court found that the testimonies of eyewitnesses, particularly PW-2, who not only witnessed the accident and the resultant death but also identified the accused as the driver of the crime auto, were sufficient to establish the identity of the accused. Additionally, the owner of the crime auto (PW-7), who identified the accused in Court, confirmed that the accused was in possession of the crime auto at the time of the accident. PW-7, upon learning about the accident, had taken the accused to the Police Station along with the vehicle record and got him surrendered.In the present case, the high court noted, that the the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses 2-4 coupled with testimony of Prosecution Witness 7 (owner of auto) "proved the offence committed by the accused beyond all doubt".It thus said that it has no "reason to disbelieve the prosecution case". Hence, the Court found no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in convicting the accused under Section 304-A of IPC. The high court said that the two courts had rightly concluded that the accused's rash and negligent act caused the incident and there was no failure in appreciating the evidence or in establishing the accused's guilt. Substantiating this, the Court reasoned:“It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Court below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.7.”However, while upholding the conviction, the Court considered the passage of 13 years since the occurrence of the incident and the accused's family circumstances as mitigating factors. Consequently, in order “to meet the ends of justice”, the Court modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment from one year to six months. Thus, the Criminal Revision Case was partly allowed, and the accused was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.Case Details: Vemagiri Raju @ Yesu, E.g.dt. v. The State Of Andhra...

Separate Identification Parade Not Required If Accused Is Identified In Court By Prosecution Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saahas Arora

Separate Identification Parade Not Required If Accused Is Identified In Court By Prosecution Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers