Back
1985 Supreme(Pat) 24
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S. Roy and A. Singh, JJ.
Bandhan Nayak - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1983 (R)
Decided On : 18.1.1985
A TIP must be conducted properly in accordance with the law and any failure to comply with the legal requirements may render the identification evidence unreliable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - PROCEDURE - STRICT COMPLIANCE REQUIRED - FAILURE TO COMPLY - EFFECT ON EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY WITNESSES AT POLICE STATION BEFORE TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - IMPROPER - CONVICTION BASED ON SUCH IDENTIFICATION - UNSAFE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of dacoity and murder under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was based on the identification of the appellant by two witnesses at a Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted by a Magistrate. However, the appellant argued that the TIP was not conducted properly as he had already been shown to the witnesses at the police station before the TIP.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the TIP was not conducted properly and that the identification of the appellant by the witnesses was not reliable. The court noted that the police had failed to take adequate precautions to ensure that the witnesses did not have an opportunity to see the appellant before the TIP. The court also noted that the witnesses had not been able to identify the appellant at a previous TIP conducted by the investigating officer at the police station.
Issues: Whether the TIP was conducted properly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the TIP was not conducted properly because the police had failed to take adequate precautions to ensure that the witnesses did not have an opportunity to see the appellant before the TIP. The court also noted that the witnesses had not been able to identify the appellant at a previous TIP conducted by the investigating officer at the police station.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the appellant from the liability of the bail bond.
Satyeshwar Roy and Abhiram Singh, JJ.-Two persons were put on trial in a case under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial, one of them, namely Jamua, died. The appellant was found guilty under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. On 8.7.1982, P. W. 5 lodged an information with the police that in the previous night there was a dacoity in. their house. In course of the dacoity rice and utensils were taken away and Chamar Singh was murdered. P. W. 5 did not name anybody as the person who had committed dacoity in their house. However, during the course of investigation, the appellant and another were apprehended, In the T. I. Parade, the appellant was identified by P. Ws. 2 and 5. The Court below relied on the evidence of these two witnesses and found the appellant guilty.
3. P. W. 1 was the son of Chamar Singh, P. W. 2 was the brother of Chamar Singh and P. W. 3 was a neighbour of Chamar Singh and in whose house also there was a dacoity. P. W. 5 was widow of Chamar Singh. In the Test Identification Parade, these four persons were witnesses. P. Ws. 1 and 3 could not identify anybody from out of the suspects as the person or persons who had committed dacoity in the house of Chamar. However, P. W. 2 and 5 both identified the appellant.
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that no reliance can be placed on the identification made by P. Ws. 2 and 5 and the appellant cannot be held guilty of the charge. He further submitted that the Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate had no significance as the appellant had already been shown to P. Ws. 2 and 5 at the Police Station. The learned Court below has considered the evidence regarding the Test Identification Parade in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the impugned JUDGMENT :.
5. Before proceeding to appreciate the submission of Mr. Banerjee with reference to the facts of this case it is necessary to notice the nature and scops of Test Identification Parade. We will deal this elaborately because in a number of cases we have found that courts below have no clear idea about it.
In Harnath Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1970 SC 1619) the Supreme Court observed: "During the investigation of a crime the police has to hold identification parades for the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify properties which are subject-matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned therein. They have thus a two-fold object, first, to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime or a particular property was the subject-matter of the crime. It is also designed to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. In Budhsen and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1970 SC 1321) the Supreme Court observed that the statements made at these Parades in the course of identification do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The persons required to identify the accused should have had no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the crime and before identification. The evidence in ORDER :to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The Court as a rule of prudence generally looks for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness as to identity of the accused who are strangers to him in the form of earlier identification proceeding.
The evidence as to identification must be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny by the Court.
6. Test Identification Parade is of great significance which will also appear from the fact that in
