AMITSINGH BHIKAMSING THAKUR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 05-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
~ 
... 
' 
AMITSINGH BHIKAMSING THAKUR 
A 
v . 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JANUARY 5, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.3-Testimony of relative-Evidentiary value of-Held, can be relied 
upon-However evidence of such witness to be assessed with caution. 
C 
s.9-Test Identification Parade-Object of-Held, is to test the memory 
of witnesses based upon first impression-It is desirable that TIP is 
conducted soon after arrest of the accused-However, if circumstances are 
beyond control, delay to hold TIP not fatal to prosecution-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 162. 
s.27-Requirements of-Elucidated. 
Words and Phrases-"Fact discovered"-Meaning of 
PWl used to work with the deceased in his shop. According to the 
prosecution, on the fateful night when PWl and the deceased were returning 
home after closing shop, the four accused persons approached them and 
demanded the cash bag being carried by the deceased. The threat was 
followed by firing of bullet at the deceased on his chest from close range. 
The assailants thereafter fled on a motorcycle which had been stolen hours 
earlier from a parking area. The Trial Court primarily relying upon the 
evidence of PWl and two other witnesses convicted all the four accused 
under ss.396, 506, 341, 379 r/w. s.120-B, IPC. High Court upheld the 
conviction of Appellant-accused and one co-accused while acquitting the 
remaining two accused. 
In appeal to this Court the conviction of Appellant was challenged on 
various grounds viz. (1) that identification of the accused through a test 
identification parade had no legal value; (2) that the so caJled confession 
D 
E 
F 
G 
had no evidentiary value since it was extracted under duress and also 
H 
191 
19'2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
because discovery in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been made 
from an open space. It was further contended that PWl was related to the 
deceased and hence his evidence should be rejected. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. 
They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating 
agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the 
offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used 
as corroborative of the statement in court. [Para 14] [199-E] 
c 
1.2. The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only 
when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea 
of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the 
culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of 
D 
other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check 
upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an 
identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory 
of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the 
prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as 
eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature 
E 
of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in CrPC, 
1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is desirable that a test 
identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the 
accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused 
being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This 
F 
is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has 
to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. 
If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it 
cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. [Para 14] [199-F-H, 200-A-B) 
G 
1.3. The (acts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are 
relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the 
substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The 
evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the 
first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The 
purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen 
H 
the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe 
i 
) 
,)_ 
r
\ 
_,_ 
-~ 
) 
) 
-+ 
-+-
·-1 
.... 1 
\ 
~ .. 
..., . 
AMITSINGH BHIKAMSING THAKUR v. ST ATE 
193 
rule

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.