AMRIK SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
AMRIK SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2012)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Criminal Trial: Test Identification Parade-TIP – Non-conduct
of – Effect of, on prosecution case – Appellant and two others
allegedly committed robbery and murdered the victim during the
course of the robbery – FIR by complainant-eye-witness – Conviction
u/ss. 302 r/w 34 and 392 and sentenced to life imprisonment by
courts below – On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to prove that
the complainant and the deceased were carrying cash and it was
looted by the accused persons – Conviction solely on the basis of
the identification of the accused by the complainant-eye-witness
for the first time in the court room – Prior thereto no TIP was
conducted by the investigating agency – When no TIP was
conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR
would play an important role – However, there were some
contradictions in the first statement of the complainant recorded in
the form of FIR and in the deposition before the court, thus, TIP
was necessary – It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the
accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time
in the Court – Conviction of the accused is unsustainable – Judgment
and order of the trial court as well as of the High Court is quashed
and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 r/w s. 34, s. 392.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is required to be noted that the appellants-
accused have been convicted mainly on the identification of the
accused by PW1 in the Court Room and on the recovery of Rs.1
lakh each from the accused persons which were recovered from
the places suggested by the accused. Thus, the conviction of the
accused in the instant case is solely on the identification of the
accused by PW1 in the court room. Prior thereto no TIP has been
conducted by the Investigating Agency. [Para 6][458-G-H]
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 451
451
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
1.2 As regards, the conviction based on the recovery of
Rs.1 lakhs each from the accused is concerned, it is required to
be noted that even the trial court specifically gave the finding
that the prosecution has failed to prove that the original
complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in
the dicky of the scooter as alleged. To connect the accused for
having conducted the evidence of loot of Rs.5 lakhs, primarily
the prosecution was required to establish and prove that the
person from whom the amount which was having to have looted.
Thereafter the prosecution is required to establish and prove
that the amount which is recovered from the accused is the very
amount which the complainant/the person from whom the amount
is looted. Even the trial court has also not given much stress on
the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused. When the
prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased
were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in the dicky of the scooter and it
was the very looted amount which was recovered from the
accused, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of recovery
of some cash. [Para 6.1][459-A-D]
1.3 As regards, the conviction of the accused on the PW1-
eye-witness identifying the accused in the Court Room and non-
conducting the TIP is concerned, while appreciating the said
aspect the averments in the FIR which was given by PW1-eye-
witnesses are required to be referred to. It may be true that the
FIR cannot be encyclopedia. However, at the same time when no
TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected
in the FIR would play an important role. It is required to be
considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the
eye-witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of
the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of
deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court
Room? Nothing has been mentioned in his first statement that
he had seen the accused earlier and that he will be able to identify
the accused. In light of the above, the deposition of PW1 in the
Court and his identifying the accused for the first time in the
Court is required to be appreciated. [Paras 6.2, 6.3][459-D-G;
460-D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
1.4 There are some contradictions in the first statement of
the complainant recorded in the form of FIR and in the deposition
before the Court. In the deposition before the Court, he has tried

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