GIREESAN NAIR & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 11-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 599
599
GIREESAN NAIR & ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1864-1865 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 11, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872 : s. 9 – Test Identification Parade(TIP) –
Legality and validity of – Prosecution case that accused persons to
avenge the police atrocity hatched a conspiracy, abetted acts of
rioting and destruction of public property – A-17 and A-19 alleged
to have caused the death of a bus conductor – Accused convicted
and sentenced for hatching conspiracy, murder of the bus conductor
and destruction of roadways buses and other public properties –
Findings of trial court and High Court on issue of conspiracy and
murder attained finality – As regards, issue of destruction of
property, the trial court rejected all the objections to the legality
and credibility of TIP, and convicted the accused Nos. 1-7, 9-12,
14, 16 and 18 u/ss. 143, 147, 148 IPC, and s. 3(2)(e) of 1984 Act r/
w s. 149 IPC and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment
– High Court upheld the same – On appeal, held: Witnesses had the
opportunity of seeing the accused before the conduct of TIP – Even
one of the accused deposed to the said effect – There existed no
useful purpose behind conducting the TIP – TIP was a mere
formality, and no value could be attached to it – Delay in holding
the TIP coupled with other circumstances cast a serious doubt on
the credibility of the TIP witnesses – Conduct of the TIP, coupled
with the hovering presence of the police during the conduct of the
TIP vitiated the entire process – Trial court as well as the High
Court erred in relying on the evidence of the TIP witnesses –
Discrepancies in the manner in which both the TIPs were conducted,
the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt
– Apart from the TIPs, no other evidence put forth by the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused – When the TIP is vitiated, the
conviction cannot be upheld – Appellants acquitted of all the
charges – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 386 – Penal Code,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
1860 – ss. 143, 147, 148, 149 – Prevention of Damages to Public
Property Act, 1984 – s. 3(2)(e).
s. 9 – Test Identification Parade – Conduct of – Object of
conducting TIP – Evidentiary value of TIP – Explained.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The eyewitnesses questioned by the
prosecution did not give out the names or identities of the accused
participating in the riot and involved in the destruction of public
property. Therefore, the IO (PW-84) had to necessarily conduct
a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The object of conducting a
TIP is threefold. First, to enable the witnesses to satisfy
themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one
who was seen by them in connection with the crime. Second, to
satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real
person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said
occurrence. Third, to test the witnesses’ memory based on first
impression and enable the prosecution to decide whether all or
any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to the crime. [Para
25][615-E-G]
1.2 TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police.
It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction.
It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases
where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant.
The evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the
Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence.
Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses
before a court of law at the time of trial. Therefore, TIPs, even if
held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence
on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained. [Para
26][615-G-H; 616-A-B]
1.3 It is a matter of great importance both for the
investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the
proper administration of justice that a TIP is held without
avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused.
This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused
being shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade.
This is a very common plea of the accused, and therefore, the
prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
for making such an allegation. If, however, circumstances are
beyo

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