The importance of conducting a Test Identification Parade (T.I.Parade) to establish the identity of an accused and strengthen the trustworthiness of witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.-II), Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2002; whereby the sole appellant was convicted for the offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo further R.I. for 1 year under section 376 IPC.

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.10.2001 at nearly 8 a.m. informant went to serve meal to ploughman in the field. Thereafter, she went to cut grass in arhar field. In the meantime, one unknown person came, caught hold of her and forcibly pushed her to the ground and stuffed saree in her mouth and committed rape upon her and fled away. Thereafter, informant came out and narrated the incident to Makul Mian (P.W.-10) who identified the fleeing person as Nakul Mahto.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, assisted by Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant made following submissions to assail the impugned judgment.

(i) The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

(ii) As per the medical report no struggle has been found, inasmuch as, no any mark of struggle found on any part of her body.

(iii) Though the allegation made by the victim that she was thrashed on open field and her hands was tied forcefully and cloth stuffed in her mouth appears to be concocted, inasmuch as, no any mark of injury was caused by the act of the accused.

(iv) As per the statement made by the victim that Makul Mian (P.W.10) has told him that the accused name is Nakul Mahto, however, P.W. 10 who has been alleged to be witness has been turned hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution.

He lastly submits that in spite of the fact that the victim was not knowing the appellant nor she could identify the appellant and only on the basis of P.W.10 she mentioned his name as Nakul Mahto, no any T.I.Parade was conducted in order to confirm the identity of the accused- appellant.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer of the petitioner for acquittal and submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court, as such no interference is required. However, as per the available record there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the several documents in the LCR and the impugned judgment it appears that on 10.10.2001 at about 8 a.m., informant went to serve meal to ploughman in the agricultural field. Thereafter, she went to cut grass in arhar field. In the meantime, one unknown person came and caught hold of her and forcibly pushed her to the ground and stuffed saree in her mouth and committed rape upon her and fled away.

It further appears from the prosecution story that the informant victim came out and narrated the entire incident to one Makul Mian (P.W.10) who told her that the person who has just fled away was Nakul Mahto.

At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the victim was not knowing the name of the appellant and on the basis of information given by P.W.-10 Makul Mian, she stated the name of the appellant. However, the said P.W.10 has been declared hostile, inasmuch as, he did not support the case of prosecution and stated that he has not given name to the police that the person fleeing away in lungi and ganji was the accused Nakul Mahto. Since the victim was not knowing the name of the appellant, as such T. I. Parade was required to be conducted by the prosecution, however in the instant case no T. I. Parade has been conducted. In this regard reference be made to the judgment passed in the case of Ram Babu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 63; wherein at paragraph 14 has been held as under:-

“14. As per Section 9 of the Evidence Act, facts which establish the identity of an accused are relevant. Identif