Not Prudent To Convict An Accused Solely On Basis Of Identification For The First Time In Court Without Test Identification Parade: Supreme Court

Clarifying an important aspect regarding Test Identification Parade (TIP), the Supreme Court on Monday held that it would not be prudent to convict an accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in court. A Division Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that, "Even applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and looking to the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court." The court was hearing two appeal petitions moved by accused persons, Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander, who were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 (Punishment for murder) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and Section 392 (Punishment for robbery) of the Indian Penal Code, 1892. Factual matrix The deceased Gian Chand, his father Munshi Ram along with the complainant, Des Raj (PW1) were proceeding from the office of Subregistrar District Fazilka. While returning to their village, three people tried stopping them. When the complainant did not stop the vehicle, co-accused Subhash Chander temporarily blinded him by throwing red chilli powder. Afterwhich, the accused tried to snatch the complainant's scooter. Amid the scuffle, the present appellant, Amrik Singh shot the deceased in the chest. The complainant saw that the assailants had taken away the scooter and Gian Chand was lying unconscious with blood oozing out of his chest. It is the prosecution's case that the motive of the appellants was to steal an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, which was in the dicky of the scooter. After the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses , examination and further examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of criminal procedure, the trial court was inclined to convict them for the said offences. Mainly relying upon the deposition of PW1 – original complainant and on the recovery of Rs.1 lakh from the place suggested by the accused, the Trial Court held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 392 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for having committed the murder of deceased Gian Chand. The accused then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which in turn, dismissed their appeals and confirmed the trial court's sentence. This prompted them to move the Supreme Court. Arguments of parties Roohina Dua, counsel appearing for the accused, submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court had committed serious errors in convicting the accused persons. It was brought to light that they were convicted on the deposition of PW1 – original complainant – informant and the identification of the accused in the Court by PW1. However, prior to the identification in court, there was no Test Identification Parade conducted to identify the accused. Such non conduct of the TIP is fatal to the case of the prosecution more particularly when PW1 is the original complainant who did not disclose any description of the accused before the investigation officer and even in the FIR. In the light of the said facts, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the identification of the accused by PW1 in the Court for the first time and on the basis of the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused. Adding on, it was contended that in the absence of any cogent evidence on the identification of the accused and failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the identification of the accused beyond doubt, to convict them solely on the basis of the identification of the accused by PW1 for the first time in the Court is not warranted. Moreover, the factum of Rs.5 lakhs being carried in the scooter by the complainant and the deceased has not been established and proved. Therefore, the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused becomes insignificant, Dua contended. Owing to these submissions, the court was urged to set aside the sentence. Countering these submissions, the State pointed out that in the present case when PW1 had identified the accused in the Courtroom and that not conducting the TIP would not vitiate the trial and the prosecution's case. Solidifying the argument, Advocate Richa Kapoor appearing for the State argued that the TIP is conducted only for the Investigating Officer to make sure that the investigation is going in the right direction, against the real culprit. The absence of TIP may not ipsofacto be sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the testimony...

Not Prudent To Convict An Accused Solely On Basis Of Identification For The First Time In Court Without Test Identification Parade: Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags