SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
P. Sasikumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1473 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) No.2756 of 2019)
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Identification - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, 34, 449, 404, 201 - The judgment discusses the relevance of Test Identification Parade (TIP) in criminal cases and emphasizes the importance of corroborating dock identification with TIP. It highlights the doubt surrounding the identification of the accused and the fatal flaw in the police investigation due to the absence of TIP.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl inside her house, allegedly by two accused, one of whom is the present appellant. The prosecution's case is largely based on circumstantial evidence, and the appellant's identity is a key issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was a fatal flaw in the police investigation, leading to doubt regarding the appellant's identity. The dock identification of the appellant was deemed doubtful, and the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the identification of the accused, particularly the present appellant, and the relevance of Test Identification Parade (TIP) in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of TIP in corroborating dock identification and highlighted that the absence of TIP can prove fatal for the prosecution, especially when the accused is a stranger to the witness. It held that doubt always belongs to the accused and acquitted the present appellant based on the lack of conclusive evidence regarding his identity.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case. The decision of acquittal was based on the evidence, or lack thereof, against the present appellant and had no bearing on the case of accused no.1.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellant before us has challenged the order dated 12.01.2017 of the High Court of Madras which has upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as well as under Section(s) 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC. He has been, inter alia, sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
2. It was a brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl committed inside her house on the night of 13.11.2014, allegedly by two accused, one of them being the present appellant before this Court. There is no direct evidence of the crime although there is both ocular as well as forensic evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the murder of the 14-year-old girl, at the hands of the present appellant and another accused, who is accused no.1 and also the main accused. The present accused is accused no.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is largely based on circumstantial evidence. FIR No.408/2014 was lodged on 13.11.2014 at police station Alagapuram by PW-1 Durairaj, who is the father of the deceased. The complainant states that he is working as a Manager at JSP Granite Company at Salem, Tamil Nadu and he has two daughters. The elder daughter had studied engineering from Mahendra Engineering College and is now working in L&T Company, Chennai. His younger daughter was studying in the 8th standard in a local school in Salem. His wife is working as an accountant in a private company. On 13.11.2014 his wife had gone to Chennai to meet their elder daughter as she was not well. The younger daughter (deceased) was alone in the house. That day he had called his younger daughter about 2-3 times, in order to remind her to receive her tiffin but she did not answer his call. He had then made up his mind to return to his house early. When he was climbing the stairs of his house at about 07:15 p.m., after parking his scooter, he saw a person aged about 25 years, walking down the stairs. This man had a helmet in his hand, which he immediately wore on seeing the complainant. He found the door of his house open and his daughter was bleeding profusely from her neck. Meanwhile, neighbors had gathered on hearing his cries and they informed him that two persons had come to his house who had brutally killed his daughter. The deceased was still alive was rushed to the hospital where she was declared dead.
4. The post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. K. Gokularamanan (PW-14) at 10:30 a.m. next day on 14.11.2014 and the following antemortem injuries were found on the deceased –
2. On the right hand side of the aforesaid injury a cut injury on the lower and outer side was seen which extended up to the backside of neck measuring 12 x 4 depths in the muscles and blood outflow was seen in the surrounding areas. No other injuries were seen on the external parts of the body.”
According to the postmortem report, the cause of death was shock due to the antemortem injuries on the neck and profuse bleeding and the time of death was 12-18 hours prior to the post mortem.
5. Meanwhile the FIR was registered as Case Crime No.408/2014. The two accused were apprehended by the Police on 15.11.2014, at about 10 p.m.
6. Recoveries were made during the investigation on their pointing out which is as follows :-
A black colour Pulsar Vehicle without registration number, a black colour helmet, a black colour cell phone with broken glass, a knife with a maroon handle and a checkered bloodstained shirt were recovered.
From pointing out of accused No. 2
Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can prove fatal for the prosecution, especially when the accused is a stranger to the witness, leading to doubt regarding the accused's identity.
Murder – Identification of accused in Court is acceptable without prior TIP and absence of TIP may not be fatal for prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the unreliability of witness identification and the importance of a fair and proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) in corroborating witness testi....
The TIP conducted by the prosecution must be in accordance with the law, and the recovery of evidence must be of substantial value to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; delays in Test Identification Parades do not automatically invalidate witness identifications if proper safeguards are ma....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable eyewitness identification, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the obligation to disclose crucial reports in ....
(1) Test Identification Parade (TIP) – TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which conviction of accused can be sustained.(2) TIP conducted in presence of a....
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) undermines the reliability of dock identification, making it insufficient for conviction in acquittal appeals.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Reliance cannot be placed on such a TIP which is full of lacuna.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.