1. Robbery causing hurt — Conviction under Section 394, Indian Penal Code — Appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Anju @ Chand Khan –Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2019 [against the judgment dated 30.3.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 137/2013]
Decided on : 22-3-2022
The judgment clarifies that Test Identification Parades (TIP) are not statutory mandates but corroborative tools. While dock identification is substantive evidence, its reliability can be strengthened by other corroborative facts, such as early identification or the recovery of stolen property.
Headnote:
(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- identification parade -- purpose -- person who claims to have seen offender at time of occurrence identifies perpetrator without tutoring or aid from any source -- primarily strengthens prosecution’s case as it acts as circumstance corroborative of identification in Court -- prior test identification aims to test and strengthen trustworthiness of evidence -- safe rule of prudence is to look for corroboration in cases of dock identification without prompt test identification parade when accused are strangers to witness -- this rule of prudence is not absolute -- is subject to exception -- corroboration can be in form of other circumstantial and material evidence brought on record. (2021) 1 SCC 118 relied on. [Para 7]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 394 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- identification by witness on next day after occurrence would be corroborative fact as it is not disputed or denied by defence -- identification was deposed to by witness in his cross-examination -- appellant’s involvement also proved by recovery of mobile phone which was robbed -- conviction affirmed -- sentence reduced. [Paras 7 & 10]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of test identification parade due to delay and prior identification of the accused at the police station. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Identification in court corroborated by early identification at the police station and recovery of stolen property from the appellant's house. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Test identification parade is corroborative; dock identification is substantive evidence, though prudence suggests corroboration when the accused is a stranger to the witness. (Para 7 )
5. Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. What is the legal status and purpose of a Test Identification Parade (TIP)?
A TIP has no specific statutory mandate in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Evidence Act. It is not substantive evidence but serves as a corroborative circumstance to strengthen the prosecution's case and test the witness's memory to ensure the accused is the actual culprit. (Para 7 )
7. How does the court evaluate dock identification when the accused is a stranger to the witness?
While identification in court is substantive evidence, as a rule of prudence, courts generally look for corroboration—such as a prompt TIP—when the accused is a stranger, unless the court considers it safe to rely on the specific witness's evidence based on the facts. (Para 7 )
8. Does the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade make identification evidence inadmissible?
No. Since a TIP does not constitute substantive evidence, the failure to hold one does not ipso facto make the evidence of identification inadmissible. The weight attached to such identification is determined by the court based on the circumstances of the case. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, upholds conviction of Anju @ Chand Khan under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500/-.
2. The impugned judgment acquits Jitendra Kushwah @ Jeetu and Rafik @ Rakib. The State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. The fourth accused, Kamlesh @ Lature Jatav, whose conviction was upheld by the High Court, did not file any appeal against his conviction, and we have been informed that he has been released on completion of sentence. Possibly, he was also involved in some other case.
3. On the question of the appellant’s involvement, testimony of the injured victim, who was also the informant, Suresh Kori (PW-1), is significant. On midnight of 15.2.2012, Suresh Kori returned from Delhi and had parked the truck that he had driven, in front of the truck owner’s house in Dabra. Suresh Kori had then proceeded towards his house situated in Deedar Colony on foot when two persons accosted him in front of Happy Sardar’s house. One of them was tall, and the other was short with a wheatish complexion. They took Rs. 6800/- in cash and two mobile phones out of his pocket. Thereupon, two more persons, armed with pickaxes, joined them. They inflicted wounds on his head and right leg. Suresh Kori had returned to the truck owner’s house and thereafter went to the police station for reporting the complaint. He was given medical treatment before he went home. He identified the present appellant - Anju @ Chand Khan, Kamlesh @ Lature Jatav, and Rafik @ Rakib, but he could not identify Jitendra Kushwah @ Jeetu. At the same time, he had claimed that all of them had committed the offence, and further, the accused were threatening him to compromise else they would kill him.
4. The injuries suffered by Suresh Kori have been confirmed by Dr. Harish Arya (PW-8), who had examined him on 15.2.2012 and deposed about the three injuries, including incised wounds on the right side of his forehead and right ankle. The occurrence is also corroborated by Banwari Jatav (PW-6), an accountant working with the truck owner, and Deendayal (PW-2), the helper of the truck, as they had met Suresh Kori immediately after the occurrence and he informed them that he had been robbed of Rs. 6800/- and two mobiles and injuries had been inflicted upon him by pickaxes.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the fact that the test identification parade took place almost three months after the appellant was arrested. Further, in the crossexamination, Suresh Kori stated that the accused persons were arrested on the next day of the incident. He was called to the police station and asked if the arrested persons were the same who had accosted him. On seeing them, Suresh Kori stated that these were the same boys.
6. There is no doubt that Suresh Kori had identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators in Court. However, Suresh Kori was also candid as he accepted in his cross-examination that he had identified the perpetrators at the police station the day after the incident. In this background, the identification of the appellant in the test identification parade on 25.5.2012 before Naib Tahsildar, Dabra, Gwalior has been challenged.
7. The identity of the accused is relevant under section 9 [Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.—Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1
