LALA @ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 24-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
LALA @ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2018)
AUGUST 24, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 –
Unlawful assembly with common object of causing death –
Prosecution case that dispute between the parties – Deadly assault
on victim by 10-12 persons carrying sharp edged weapons – Victim
later succumbed to his injuries – Informant also sustained injuries
– FIR by the injured informant wherein six accused named, however
appellant not named but his physical description given – In the
supplementary statement u/s. 161 CrPC appellant identified by name
– Conviction and sentence of accused including appellant u/ss. 302,
120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Upheld by High Court – Interference
with – Held: Not called for – Though FIR silent on the name of the
appellant, prosecution case cannot be discarded on basis thereof,
when other reliable evidence available – Colloquial variation also
would not render the identification unreliable – Test identification
parade-TIP for the appellant was unnecessary as he was specifically
identified by the prosecution witnesses as the person who wielded
sword and inflicted the injuries – Failure to conduct the TIP would
not vitiate his conviction – Identity of the appellant as one of the
attacking group members and his specific role in the assault
established beyond doubt – Prosecution produced cogent evidence
of the appellant being part of a conspiracy by all the accused in
the assault which led to the death of the victim and injuries to the
informant and others – Evidence – First Information Report – Test
Identification Parade.
Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021: Guidelines Regarding
Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials’ – On facts,
confusion created by multiple versions of statements and depositions
in the projection of either side – Reference to the Guidelines –
Necessity of.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 501
501
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant was not named in the FIR by the
injured informant. The prosecution however tried to co-relate
the appellant as the one who was described as ‘heightened person
having long nose’ in the FIR. This has been done through the
evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 as recorded herein. [Para
12][509-H; 510-A]
1.2 The contention of the appellant’s counsel that the
supplementary statements identifying the accused by name were
not produced before the courts below, do not appear to be entirely
correct. The trial court records clearly reveal that PW1’s
statement identifying the accused by name, was available before
the Sessions Court. It is also plausible that the accused with the
alias Lala could be referred by the witnesses as ‘Lalya’. The
colloquial variation is not so far removed so as to render the
identification unreliable, particularly when no other person by
such name is amongst the accused group. [Para 13][510-B-C]
1.3. While it is true that the FIR is silent on the name of
the appellant, this Court cannot entirely throw out the
prosecutorial case on such a basis as other reliable evidence are
available in the case. The FIR is certainly the starting point of
the investigation, but it is well within the rights of the prosecution
to produce witness statements as they progress further into the
investigation and unearth the specific roles of accused person.
The FIR as is known, only sets the investigative machinery, into
motion. [Para 14][510-D-E]
1.4. In the instant matter, two courts have concurrently
concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned
in the FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically
identified by PW2, PW4 and PW6. In view of his positive
identification by the eye witnesses, the TIP not being conducted,
was held to be immaterial. The eye witnesses here have ascribed
the same specific role to the appellant and narrated the events in
same chronology, without material discrepancies. Furthermore,
this case involves multiple persons attacking in a group with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
deadly weapons and it is not reasonable to expect recollection of
every minute details by the eyewitnesses. [Para 15][510-E-G]
1.5. Test Identification Parade was unnecessary in the
instant case as the identity of the appellant was known to the
witnesses and he was specifically identified by PW1 and PW2 as
the person who wielded sword and inflicted the 

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