IQBAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 06-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 6 S.C.R. 239 
IQBALAND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1663 OF 2012) 
MAY6, 2015 
(T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 396 - Conviction under - By 
courts below- On appeal, held: Conviction solely based on c 
identification of the accused person by eye-witnesses and 
their identification in Test-Identification Parade - Identification 
of the accused by the eye-witnesses was doubtful in view of 
the fact that the incident occurred in the pitch of darkness 
and hence has to be viewed with caution by looking for D 
corroboration - No recovery of stolen property or weapons 
of crime was made to connect the accused persons with the 
crime - In absence of corroborating evidence, conviction 
solely based on the identification of the accused, cannot be 
sustained - Appellants-accused acquitted, giving them E 
benefit of doubt. 
Test Identification - Evidentiary value - Held: 
evidence of identification of the miscreants in the Test 
Identification Parade is not a substantive evidence -
F 
Prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence by 
establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused 
with the crime. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. In the commission of offence of dacoity, 
identification -becomes susceptible to errors and 
miscarriage of justice. In the light of the fact that the 
incident occurred in the pitch of darkness, the H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A identification of the appellants by the witnesses has to 
be viewed with caution and the court is to look for 
corroboration strengthening the identification. [Paras 12 
and 14) [246-C; 249-A] 
B 
2. Evidence of identification of the miscreants in 
the test identification parade is not a substantive 
evidence. Conviction cannot be based solely on the 
identity of the dacoits by the witnesses in the test 
identification parade. The prosecution has to adduce 
C substantive evidence by establishing incriminating 
evidence connecting the accused with the crime, like 
recovery of articles which are the subject matter of 
dacoity and the alleged weapons used in the commission 
of the offence. [Para 15) [249-B-C] 
D 
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused 
persons, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that 
the stolen property was in the possession of the accused 
persons or that the accused had knowledge that the 
E property was a stolen property or the accused persons 
had converted the stolen property. No such recovery 
was made to connect the appellants and other non-
appealing accused persons with the crime. [Para 17] 
[250-B-C] 
F 
4. Courts below based the verdict of conviction 
solely on the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and the 
identification of the appellants and other non-appealing 
accused in the test identification parade. In the a11>sence 
G of any other evidence like recovery of stolen jeWellery 
or other articles strengthening the prosecution case, 
conviction cannot be based solely on the identification 
of the accused in the test identification parade. Serious 
doubts arise as regards identification of the accused 
H regarding complicity of the appellants in the commission 
IQBAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR 
241 
PRADESH 
of dacoity and their identification by the witnesses and A 
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the 
accused beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction 
of the appellants under Section 396 IPC cannot be 
sustained and is liable to be set aside. [Para 19] [250-H; 
251-A-C] 
B 
Hari Nath and Anr. vs. State of U.P, (1988) 1 SCC 14: 
1988 (1) SCR 848 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1988 (1) SCR 848 
relied on. 
Para 12 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1663 of2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
2of1981. 
c 
D 
Mahabir Singh, S. S. Shamshery, Sandeep Singh, Amit E 
Sharma, R. C. Kohli for the Appellants. 
Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Abhisth Kumar, Sudeep Kumar 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
R. BANUMATHI, J. - 1. This appeal by special leave 
arises out of the judgment dated 14.05.2012, passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing Criminal 
Appeal No.2 of 1981, confirming the conviction of the G 
appellants under Section 396 IPC and also the sentence of 
ten years rigorous imprisonment imposed on each of them. 
2. Case of the prosecution is that o

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