1. Conviction for murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against affirmation of conviction by the High Court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Stalin @ Satalin Samuvel - Appellant
VERSUS
State Represented by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2012
Decided On : 18-01-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Reliance cannot be placed on such a TIP which is full of lacuna.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Reliance cannot be placed on such a TIP which is full of lacuna.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, Section 109 read with Section 201, Section 109 read with Section 182 and Sections 120B and 148 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conspiracy and abetment – None of requisites were followed in TIP in question – Reliance could not have been placed on such a TIP which is full of lacuna – As such, conviction on the basis of such a TIP would not be sustainable – Investigating agency appears to have gone out of way to create evidence against accused persons – Prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled to benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. (Paras 21, 23, 26, 27 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge Judgment dated 19th February 2009 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby dismissing appeals filed by appellants herein and affirming judgment dated 14th November 2007 passed by Trial Court, thereby convicting appellants herein for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment. Trial court further convicted appellants herein under Section 109 read with Section 201, Section 109 read with Section 182 and Sections 120B and 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for different periods under said Sections.
Findings of Court:
Judgment dated 14th November 2007 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants herein and the impugned judgment dated 19th February 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the same are quashed and set aside. The appellants herein are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.
Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : In Crl.A.636/2010 : Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhury,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Anush Shetty,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupatjhy B.,Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M.,Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar,Adv. Mr. Shreeharee Jaganmohan,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
In Crl.A.639/2010 & Crl.A.496/2012 : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Ms. Arshiya Ghose,Adv. Ms. Sowjhanhya Shankaran,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupatjhy B.,Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M.,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. Shreeharee Jaganmohan,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Avinash Kumar,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : In Crl.A.636/2010 : Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhury,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Anush Shetty,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupatjhy B.,Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M.,Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar,Adv. Mr. Shreeharee Jaganmohan,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
In Crl.A.639/2010 & Crl.A.496/2012 : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Ms. Arshiya Ghose,Adv. Ms. Sowjhanhya Shankaran,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupatjhy B.,Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M.,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. Shreeharee Jaganmohan,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Avinash Kumar,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the reliability of eye witness testimony and the validity of the Test Identification Parade versus the consistency of witness evidence. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Inconsistencies regarding witness presence at the crime scene, failure to follow TIP protocols, and lack of credible evidence regarding the identity of the accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Test Identification Parade evidence is inadmissible if witnesses had prior opportunity to see the accused or if mandatory procedural safeguards are ignored. (Para 22 , 23 )
5. Appeals allowed — Convictions and sentences quashed — Appellants acquitted. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. When is a Test Identification Parade (TIP) considered inadmissible as evidence?
TIP evidence is inadmissible if witnesses had ample opportunity to see the accused before the parade—whether physically, through photographs, or via media—or if the parade is conducted in the presence of a police officer. (Para 22 )
7. What are the mandatory procedural requirements for conducting a valid Test Identification Parade?
A healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects must be maintained. Non-suspects must be of the same age-group and possess similar physical features, such as size, weight, colour, and marks, to those of the suspects. (Para 22 )
8. How does the court evaluate the credibility of eye witnesses when identification is based on police-provided photographs?
If witnesses fail to provide physical descriptions of the accused to the police and later identify them after being shown photographs in custody, it casts significant doubt on the reliability of the identification. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present appeals challenge the judgment dated 19th February 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirming the judgment dated 14th November 2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur District (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), thereby convicting the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment. The trial court further convicted the appellants herein under Section 109 read with Section 201, Section 109 read with Section 182 and Sections 120B and 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the different periods under the said Sections.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:
Deceased M.R. Ravi was carrying on real estate business in Yadaval Street, Padi. He also happened to be the Town Secretary of AIADMK party of Ambattur. It is the prosecution case that accused Nos. 1 and 11 also belonged to the same political party. Accused Nos. 12 to 14 were close associates of accused No. 1. It is the prosecution case that deceased M.R. Ravi belonged to one group of the said political party whereas accused Nos. 1 and 11 belonged to the other group. According to the prosecution, they thus developed enmity towards the deceased. Accused No.1 was arrested in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accused No. 11 was arrested in a case under the IPC and they strongly believed that they were arrested only on the instigation of the deceased.
3. According to the prosecution, on 2nd June 2006 at around 10.30 a.m., deceased M.R. Ravi was inside his cabin and Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) were sitting in the office outside his cabin. At that time, six persons came there and enquired about the deceased M.R. Ravi from Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3), who were employees of the deceased. Though the accused persons were informed that the deceased was performing puja, four out of six accused persons forcibly entered into the cabin of the deceased and stabbed him with knives. It is the prosecution case that on seeing this, Kumar (PW-1), in order to save his life, ran from there. Accused Nagoor Meeran (since deceased), who was standing outside with the other accused persons, attempted to stab Kumar (PW-1). On seeing this, Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) also ran from there.
4. As per the prosecution case, Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) returned to the office of the deceased M.R. Ravi after five to ten minutes and found that the deceased was still alive. Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) took him to Sundaram Medical Foundation Hospital and admitted him in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Despite treatment, deceased M.R. Ravi died on the same day.
5. Total 18 accused were arrested. Accused Nagoor Meeran died in an encounter while being apprehended by the police. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accused Nos. 3 and 13 were absconding and as such, their case was separated. The trial court, vide judgment dated 14th November 2007, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as aforesaid.
6. Being aggrieved thereby, various appeals came to be filed before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19th February 2009, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court insofar as accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned. The High Court acquitted accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 14 to 18. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed on behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 6.
7. We have heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing o
