LexMD. KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [.2008) 5 S.C.R. 22 A MD. KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM -\ v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2008) B MARCH 14, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - s.395 - Robbery by accused and others from the house of complainant - Conviction u/s. 395 c on basis of test identification parade - Challenge to, by accused - Held: Accused was correctly identified by complainant in test identification parade - Complainant had ample opportunity to identify the accused - He was believed in respect of identification of other accused persons who faced D trial earlier and on basis thereof the accused persons were convicted u/s 395 by courts below- Hence, order of conviction and sentence of accused suffers from no infirmity and thus, upheld - Test identification parade. Evidence Act, 187.2 - s. 9 - Test identification parade - E Nature, object and nec6'ssity of - Explained. According to the prosecution case, at mid-night the appellant and others looted gold and silver ornaments, coins and cash from the house of complainant-PW3 and F his wife-PW1 by threatening them at gun point. They tied the servant, PW-3 and PW-1 and bolted them. The miscreants stayed in the house for about an hour. A case r for offence u/s 395 IPC was registered against the appellant and others. The appellant was arrested. Thereafter, test identification parade was conducted. On G completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet against the appellant. Trial Court convicted the appellant for offenc1~ punishable u/s 395 IPC and sentenced him to rigo1rous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant challenged the possibility of identification H 22 MD. KALAM @ABDUL KALAM v. STATE OF 23 RAJAS THAN J /'- before the High Court. It was contended that there was A possibility of the appellant having been shown to the complainant and his wife; and that the Test Identification Parade was done after a period of over 7 days. High Court held that it was crystal clear that PW-3 had ample opportunity to identify the appellant; that the said witness B f was believed in respect of the identification of three other accused persons who had earlier faced trial and had been convicted u/s 395 IPC and on appeal High Court upheld their conviction. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-accused contended that only on the basis c of identification by PW-3 the conviction should not have been recorded; and that PW-3 had accepted that his wife- PW-1 had not gone for the identification. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1 Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The E identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. [Para 7] [29-E] Matru v. State of UP. 1971 (2) SCC 75; Santokh Singh v. lzhar Hussain 1973 (2) SCC 406 - relied on. F 1.2 The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a Tl parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other G persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the ' i investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the H 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]5 S.C.R. A prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test identification parade s should be. conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the c prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. [Para 7] [29-F, G, H; 30-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.