Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38504
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
... – Respondent
Crl.MC/2949/2021
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.K.SURESH Sr.PP, RAMESH .P
Proper identification of accused persons by witnesses is fundamental in criminal trials, and any obstructions in this process undermine the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Identification - Criminal Procedure - Act Section List - In this case, the court addressed the legal principles surrounding the identification of accused in criminal trials, emphasizing the prosecution's duty to prove identity and the improper procedural denial of an opportunity for proper identification.
Fact of the Case:
The Public Prosecutor filed a Crl.M.C against the Sessions Court's order that barred proper identification of accused persons by a witness who cited vision problems. The original order permitted closer identification but was later revoked based on defense objections.
Issues: Whether the Sessions Judge's refusal to allow a witness to properly identify accused persons in the courtroom constituted a legal error affecting the trial's integrity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that proper identification of accused by witnesses is a critical aspect of the prosecution's burden of proof in criminal trials. Any procedural failure in this respect can severely impact the fairness of the trial.
Final Decision: Crl.M.C allowed; Sessions Judge directed to recall the witness for identification of accused persons.
ORDER
Dated : 30th November, 2021
1. Crl.M.C has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.1576/2019 while examining PW35 charge witness No.19 rejecting the request of the Public Prosecutor to direct the accused persons to come near the witness box for proper identification.
2. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, the witness expressed his inability to see the face of the accused at such a distance in the box in the court room because of his vision problem. The Sessions Judge initially allowed the request of the prosecution and directed the accused persons to come near the witness box and subsequently disallowed the said request based on the objection raised by the defence counsel. So the prime duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused person in the above case has been shut down. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the case without any iota of doubt and that has been curtailed by the illegal procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents/accused and the accused appeared through counsel. Heard both sides.
4. Crl.M.C has been filed against an order passed during the course of examination of PW35 whereby the learned Sessions Judge refused the permission initially given to identify the accused persons by directing accused Nos.1 and 2 to stand within the distance of one feet in front of witness. Learned counsel for the accused persons opposed the procedure and thereafter the court disallowed the prayer of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor finding that the Prosecutor had opportunity to make the witness to identify during chief examination.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor relied onMohammed v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLJ 46 = 2002 KHC 969), Vayalali Girishan and Others v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLD 536 = 2016 KHC 204), Rafeeque v. Sub Inspector of Police , Kunnamkulam police station and Another (2020 (4) KLT 188 = 2020 (3) KHC 715) as well as Girishkumar @ Girishan v. State of Kerala ( Crl.A.1456/2005 dated 30.11.2020), and Sadasivan @ Para v. State of Kerala and Another ( Crl.A.1461 of 2005 dated 30.6.2020) to contend that identification of the accused is very much necessary in a criminal trial and specific endorsement by Judge that accused was identified by the witness or that answer to identification pointed towards the accused or some other indication towards the accused must be there in the deposition and the absence of proper identification of the accused is a lacuna in prosecution case.
6. In Mohammed's case, it has been held that specific endorsement by Judge that accused in the dock was identified by witness or that answer to identification pointed towards the accused or some other indication towards the accused must have been made in the depositions.
7. In Vayalali Girishan's case, it has been held that merely recording the rank number of the accused in the charge without making any effort to certify the same in the deposition that the person referred by witness as one of the members of the unlawful assembly is the person standing in the dock is necessary and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that witness was referring to a particular accused whose name finds a place in the charge or to some other person and hence it was held that there was no proper identification of the accused. That was a case charged under Section 302, 143, 147, 148, 324 IPC r/w Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.
8. In Rafeeque, it has been held that substantive evidence to prove the identity of an offender is the statement of the witness in the court identifying the accused in the court as the offender or the person who committed the act. The identity of the offender cannot be proved merely on the basis that name of the accused is mentioned in the documents prepared by the detecting officer.
9. Crl.A.1456/2005 dated 30.11.2020 was a case charged under Sections 143,
