The substantive evidence of identification in the Court holds significant value, and the conduct of a test identification parade (TIP) must adhere to necessary precautions and timely procedures to maintain its admissibility and reliability.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

This appeal is at the instance of State and is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2014, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 2007, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 307 and 393 IPC.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that an FIR was lodged by PW2 Pawan Singh alleging that at about 12.30 o’clock in the intervening night of 6/7.2.2007, some unknown persons came at a liquor shop in village Bhikkampur, where Kashiram and his son Prem Singh used to work as salesman, and they demanded liquor. When Prem Singh refused, then miscreants broke the gate of the shop and opened fire, which hit the left arm of Kashiram. On raising the alarm, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter Prem Singh telephoned PW2 Pawan Singh and gave him information of the incident. PW2 thereafter lodged the FIR at 2 AM on that very day. It was registered under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, Section 393 IPC was also added.

3. After lodging the FIR, PW1 Kashiram was taken to Community Health Centre at Laksar, where he was medically examined by PW6 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, who noted the following injuries:

(i) A gunshot exit wound on the left upper arm, 20 cm above the elbow joint, measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x fresh and exit measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x fresh. X-ray of left shoulder advised.

(ii) Multiple burn abrasions on the left side chest and left side face, measuring 18 cm x 13 cm x fresh and 13 cm x 11 cm over the chest.

4. To bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. PW1 Kashiram is an injured eyewitness; PW2 Pawan Singh is complainant; PW3 Prem Singh is another eyewitness; PW4 Inspector Dhyan Singh deposed that accused Sadhu, Ashok and Sohan during interrogation confessed the crime and disclosed the name of other accused persons; PW5 Constable Kamlesh Prasad is a formal witness, who prepared the Chick FIR and made necessary entries in the GD; PW6 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma medically examined the injured (PW1) and prepared the examination report; and PW7 S.I. Pankaj Devrani is the Investigation Officer.

5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication.

6. As is evident, the prosecution case depended upon the identification of the accused persons and this identification was founded solely on test identification parade. TIP is not substantive evidence. It is admissible in evidence as corroborative evidence under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The substantive evidence is identification of the accused in the Court. Therefore, before considering the evidence on TI Parade, it would be appropriate to consider the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who have identified the accused in the Court and prior thereto in the TIP.

7. In his examination-in-chief, PW1 Kashiram states as under:

The incident is of 6.2.2007. Me and my son Prem were present at the liquor shop. We used to work there as salesman. We also used to stay there in the night. On that day, at about 12 o’clock in the night, five persons came. They came and demanded liquor and food. We refused to serve them food and liquor. Then they broke the door. We tried to save ourselves. Then they shot the bullet, which hit me. These people fled away as soon as the shot was fired. After about four months of this incident, police came and took (us) to the jail, where we had identified four persons, who were involved in the incident. On seeing the accused present in the Court, the witness said that these very five accused were involved in the incident.

8. PW3 Prem Singh, in his examination-in-chief, states as under:

The incident happened at about 12-12.30 o’clock in the night of 6.2.2007. Me and my father were at the liquor shop in Bhikampur. Five miscreants came there and they asked to bring liquor and food. When we refused, then they broke the door of the shop