In a recent landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the court highlighted the vital role of Test Identification Parades in strengthening the prosecution’s case. The case involved the conviction of the accused under various Sections of the IPC, including life imprisonment under Section 302. The lack of a Test Identification Parade was deemed a fatal flaw in the investigation. The importance of accurate identification and fair trials was underscored in this ruling.
Facts
- Post-mortem report indicated shock due to antemortem injuries on the neck and profuse bleeding as cause of death.
- Time of death estimated as 12-18 hours prior to post mortem, no other injuries found on the external body.
- Younger daughter did not answer calls from the victim before the incident.
- Elder daughter had studied engineering and was working in Chennai.
- No direct evidence of the crime found, prosecution presented ocular and forensic evidence against the accused.
- Items recovered from the appellant and main accused during investigation.
- Complainant, a Manager at JSP Granite Company, had two daughters.
- Deceased had multiple antemortem injuries on the neck as per post-mortem report.
- Accused were apprehended by the Police on 15.11.2014 based on investigations.
- Conviction of the appellant upheld by High Court under various Sections of IPC, including life imprisonment under Section 302.
Also Read: Judgment in the Case of Nationality Status: Appellant vs. Tribunal
Analysis
- The lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in the case was deemed a fatal flaw in the police investigation.
- The prosecution heavily relied on dock identification in court for the accused, who was a stranger to the witnesses.
- The High Court dismissed the identification made by a witness, emphasizing the absence of a TIP and cautioning against accepting dock identification without it.
- The prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory reason for not conducting a TIP as required.
- The court highlighted the importance of TIP in cases where witnesses are unfamiliar with the accused.
- The case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence for conviction.
- The prosecution was unable to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The case highlighted the significance of TIP in ensuring accurate identification of the accused.
- The court recommended caution in accepting dock identification without the conduct of a TIP.
- The case focused on the identification of Accused No.2 under challenging circumstances.
- The prosecution’s case was found to lack motive against the present accused.
- The judgement emphasized the critical role of TIP in ensuring fair trials and accurate identifications.
- In some cases, the evidence of prosecution witness identifying the accused in court may be of sterling nature, making TIP unnecessary.
- The investigation team must determine the relevance of conducting a TIP in a given case.
- Failure to conduct a TIP can be detrimental to the prosecution, as seen in the present case.
- Previous TIP should corroborate the accused’s identification before the court, which is lacking in the current scenario.
- Recent cases like Jayan v. State of Kerala and Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab emphasize the importance of TIP in strengthening the prosecution’s case.
- TI parade is considered part of investigation and not substantive evidence, especially when the accused is not known to the witness prior to the incident.
- Identification of the accused by a witness who had never seen the accused before the incident is weak evidence.
- The time gap between the incident and the witness’s identification of the accused in court weakens the evidence further.
- A TI parade can make the identification of the accused before the Court more trustworthy in such cases.
- The appellant’s identity was in doubt due to the weak evidence presented.
- The appellant could not have been convicted based on such doubtful evidence.
- The decision of acquittal is based on the lack of substantial evidence against the present appellant.
Decision
- The impugned order of the High Court dated 12.01.2017 has been set aside.
- The appellant has been in jail for about 8 years and will be released forthwith unless needed in another case.
- The release of the appellant will not impact the case of accused no.1.
Also Read: Swami Satyanand vs. Swami Vedvyasanand – Legal Representative Substitution Case
Case Title: P SASIKUMAR Vs. THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2024 INSC 474)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001473-001473 – 2024
