Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Swaran Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for eight months each for the commission of the aforesaid offence. The appellants (accused before the learned Trial Court) were also convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 353 read with of the Indian Penal Code () and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. It was ordered that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that t
Dock identification of unknown accused by witnesses without prior test identification parade is unreliable for conviction, especially with witness contradictions and evidentiary doubts.
Appellate interference in acquittal justified only if perverse or unreasonable; unexplained FIR delay, absent test identification parade, omnibus allegations, and dubious night identification uphold ....
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) undermines the reliability of dock identification, making it insufficient for conviction in acquittal appeals.
Conviction set aside - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. The burden of proof of guilt of an accused is upon the prosecution -It must stand by itself.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
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
