Back
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Ravi @ Ravichandran PETITIONER
versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police RESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 636 of 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6341 of 2006]
Decided on: 27/04/2007
Identification - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 - The court discussed the significance of test identification parade, the admissibility of evidence, and the requirement of arranging a test identification parade as early as possible to exclude the possibility of vague identification.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and others were tried for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and another person were involved in a murder and injury case. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the test identification parade held after a long time and the publication of accused's photographs in the newspaper significantly affected the identification process, leading to doubt in the identification of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, the significance of test identification parade, and the requirement of arranging a test identification parade as early as possible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of arranging a test identification parade as early as possible to exclude the possibility of vague identification. It also highlighted the significance of the admissibility of evidence and the impact of publication of accused's photographs in the newspaper on the identification process.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave granted.
1.Accused No. 2 before the learned Trial Judge is the appellant before us. He along with one Udayakumar and three others were tried for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The prosecution case shortly stated was as under : Liaqut Ali (PW-1), a school teacher, was a resident of 6th street in TSR Layout in the town of Tirupur. On 09.0-8.1993, at about 05.30 a.m., he was going to a mosque for offering the morning prayers. He was returning back to his house accompanied by one Rasheed (PW-2) from the mosque. John Basha (deceased) and Usman Ali (PW-3, the injured), were walking ahead of them. Saleem (PW-4) and one Mubarak were behind them.
3.When the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3 turned towards a lane which was on the eastern side of the house of PW-2, the appellant and Udayakumar were seen coming from the opposite direction. Appellant allegedly shouted that they were the persons who had thrown the bomb at the RSS office and started stabbing the deceased indiscriminately. PW-3 (Usman Ali) was allegedly stabbed by Udayakumar. When they cried for help, the appellant allegedly picked up a stone and dropped it on the head of the deceased. Appellant and the said Udayakumar thereafter allegedly ran away from the place of occurrence.
4.A First Information Report was lodged against unknown. No mark of identification of the accused was also disclosed therein. While, however, the Investigating Officer was preparing an inquest report, the first informant allegedly disclosed to him that he had noticed a scar on the right hand of one of the assailants. On or about 14.08.1993, i.e. after five days, the appellant was arrested. The said Udayakumar was also arrested. Their photographs were published in a local daily with the caption that they were the persons who were the accused of causing murder of John Basha and injury to PW-3.
5.The said publication was made in a Tamil daily 'Dinakaran' on 16.08.1993. Prior thereto or immediately thereafter, the appellant and the said Udayakumar was not put on test identification parade. They were put on test identification parade only on 24.08.1993. In the said purported test identification parade, whereas PW-1 and PW-3 purported to have identified the appellant, PW-2 and PW-4 could not identify even Accused No. 1.
6.Out of the five accused persons, who not only were charged for commission of the said offences, but also for hatching a conspiracy against the minority community, were put to trial. The learned Trial Judge by a judgment and order dated 17.09.1996 held the appellant guilty of commission of the offence of murder of John Basha punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted Udayakumar for committing an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC; acquitted the other three accused persons. They were, however, acquitted of other charges.
7.The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and the said Udayakumar.
8.We have been taken through the First Information Report as also the depositions of the so-called eye-witnesses. The nature and purport of the evidence of all the eye-witnesses are almost similar.
9.We may at the outset notice the evidence of the first informant (PW-1). According to him, the appellant and the said Udayakumar had been running towards John Basha (deceased) and Usman Ali (PW-3) from about a distance of 15 feet from them. According to him, nobody shouted when the first injury was inflicted. Apart from those two, he stated, nobody else was touched. He stated that he been knowing the accused persons from before as also their names, but then stated that he did not know the same at that time. According to him, he had mentioned in the First Information Report about the scar which he had noticed on the right hand of the appellant, but the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
