Long Delay In Test Identification Parade Coupled With Infirmities Makes The Case Doubtful: Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside 2014 Rape Conviction

While setting aside a 2014 conviction order in a rape case as there was a 10-month delay in identification of the accused, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court said that long delay in holding Test Identification Parade (TIP) coupled with infirmities and inconsistencies had rendered the prosecution's case doubtful.The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, “In the present case, delay in identifying the accused in the Court of law when prosecutrix was being examined is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is delay of about 10 months...it is not the case of the prosecution that accused were not appearing before the Sessions Court after its committal. It is also not the case of the prosecution that accused were not arrested in time and therefore, despite the fact that report was lodged against unknown persons there was need for identification immediately soon after their arrest…considering entire evidence carefully, it is quite manifest that long delay in holding Test Identification Parade coupled with other infirmities and inconsistencies as pointed out above, renders the prosecution case doubtful.”For context, Identification parades are held by the Police, during their investigation, for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the properties which are subject matter of the offence, or to identify the persons who are concerned in the offences.BackgroundThe appeals were filed by two men being aggrieved of a 2014 judgment whereby two appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code with life imprisonment and fine. They had also been convicted under IPC Section 506 (criminal intimidation) with a three year jail sentence and fine. According to the prosecution case, prosecutrix and her brother visited a temple. When she was coming down the stairs after darshan, the accused persons called them and asked their address, then they took them inside the jungle on a hillock. Thereafter, the accused took the prosecutrix and committed rape one after another. Since her brother was under the custody of the remaining accused persons, she was helpless. An FIR was registered against unknown persons on the basis of a written complaint and thereafter, appellants were arrested along with other co-accused persons. The counsel for the appellants submitted that there exist contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and another witness. The counsel pointed out that a hand written complaint was given to the police authorities which is contrary to the statements given by the prosecutrix and the other witness before the Court of law. It was further submitted that no Test Identification Parade was carried out after arrest of the appellants. The prosecutix identified the accused persons for the first time before the Court when her statements were recorded. The counsel submitted that there are several contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) report of the prosecutrix reveals that there were no injury marks seen on the body of the prosecutrix. Thus, the counsel submitted that it was a case of false implication and the judgment of conviction recorded against the present appellants needs to be set aside.The counsel for the State submitted that merely a fact that accused persons were identified in the Court was not sufficient to record the finding of acquittal.FindingsThe court on perusal of the records found that the prosecution witness-7 admitted that he had mentioned certain things on his own volition and certain things were written as per the instructions of the police personnel. The PW-7 had further admitted that he had not seen the incident taking place. “This admission of the independent prosecution witness who was admittedly present at the time of incident that he had not seen the incident makes the whole prosecution story doubtful”, the Court said.Thus, the court noted that no TIP was carried out immediately on the arrest of the accused persons. After a lapse of about 10 months' time, prosecutrix identified the accused persons in the Court and she was not firm on her identification. Further, the court noted that prosecution witness-7 had not seen the incident taking place though he happened to be the author of hand written report signed by prosecutrix.“It is evident that it is a case of false implication and prosecution failed to prove the case.”, the Court observed.The court further observed, “...Coupled with the fact that not only identification in the Court is delayed and faulty but also the fact that P.W-7 has categorically stated that he had not witnessed the incident which means that there is no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix…”The court said that conviction cannot be upheld merely on surmises and conjunctures.The court thus, allowed the appeal stating that the impugned judgement of conviction against the appellants cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The ...

Long Delay In Test Identification Parade Coupled With Infirmities Makes The Case Doubtful: Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside 2014 Rape Conviction

Anukriti Mishra

Tags