DANA YADAV @ DAHU & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 13-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DANA Y ADA V @ DAHU & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002 
[UM ESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal trial: 
Identification-Reliance of-Identification of accused in court for the 
first time after two years of occurrence without being corroborated either by C 
test identification parade or any other evidence-Accused not named in the 
FIR though other co-accused were named-Accused also not named in the 
statement made by prosecution witnesses to police-No evidence that accused 
was known to witnesses-Held it would not be safe to place reliance on such 
identification in court unless the same is corroborated by any other evidence- D 
Conviction set aside-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 9-Penal Code, 
1860-Sections 3021149, 3071149 and 436. 
Identification of accused by a solitary witness-When accusedji1/ly known 
to prosecution witnesses-Held can form basis of conviction, Hence on facts 
and circumstances of the case conviction of other accused justified. 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 9-Test identification parade: 
When accused known to prosecution witnesses-Held in such case test 
identification is not called fo1'. 
When prosecution witnesses claiming that accused was known to them, 
accused denying the same-Prayer for holding test identification parade-
Course to be adopted by court-Discussed. 
F 
Identification of accused-In court and in test identification parade-
Evidentiary value of-Farmer is substantive evidence while latter is though G 
primary evidence, but would be corroborative in its character-Further the 
• identification in test identification parade can be used only to corroborate 
identification of accused by a witness in court. 
Admissibility of-Held failure in holding test identification parade does 
363 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A not make it inadmissible in law-Ordinarily identification of accused.for the 
first time in court should not form basis of conviction unless it is corroborated 
by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other 
evidence-Previous identification is a check valve to the evidence of 
identification in court of an accused-In exceptional cases only, identification 
B of accused in court, without any corroboration, can form the basis of conviction. 
According to the prosecution informant-PW14 along with his 
companions undertook a padyatra against terror spread by Naxalites 
group. It is alleged that they were attacked by the appellant along with 
accused persons and several others, as a result of which two persons died 
C and others were injured. First Information Report was drawn up against 
named accused persons including the appellants except appellant No. 3. 
During investigation ap.Pellant No. 3 was also made accused in the case. 
Accused persons including appellants were committed to trial. Trial Court 
convicted appellants for murder and other offences. High Court upheld 
the conviction. 
D 
In these appeals, it was contended that appellant No.3 was not named 
in the FIR; that he was neither known to informant nor to any of the 
prosecution witnesses; that no test identification parade was held and since 
appellant No.3 was identified in court for the first time, no reliance should 
have been placed upon such identification; and that on the basis of the 
E analysis of evidence of identification of appellant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7, there 
remains evidence of identification by a solitary witness in which event 
chances of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There may be a case where an accused is known to a 
prosecution witness who did identify him at the time of the occurrence 
but for manifold reasons, he could not have divulged his name to the 
informant before the FIR was lodged. One of the reasons may be that such 
a witness could not meet the informant before the FIR was lodged and no 
G sooner, after lodging of the FIR, without any reasonable delay, when he 
was examined by the police, name of the accused was disclosed. The other 
reason may be where such a witness received injuries during the course 
of the occurrence and became unconscious, as such he could not get 
opportunity to disclose name of the accused to the informant before 
lodging of the FIR and no sooner he regained consciousness, name of the 
H accused was disclosed by him in his statement made before the police. 
l 
DANA Y ADA V@ OAHU v. STA TE OF BIHAR 
365 
These

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