MD. SAJJAD @ RAJU @ SALIM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 06-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l S.C.R. 265 
MD. SAJJAD @ RAJU @ SALIM 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of20 l 0) 
JANUARY 06, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r!w s.34 - Conviction under - Delay 
in holding Test Identification Parade - Effect of - Dead body of 
husband of PW-8 found lying on the road - Death was due to 
strangulation and head injuries - Entire prosecution case rested 
on the identification by prosecution witnesses and on the suspicion 
expressed by PW-8 which arose out of dispute in connection with 
business - Prosecution witnesses stated that they saw four persons 
in the company of the deceased on previous night of murder and 
recognized appellant and co-accused in the Test Identification 
Parade - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: None of 
the prosecution witnesses had given any identification marks or 
disclosed special features or attributes of any of the four persons 
in general and the accused in particular - No incident or crime 
had actually taken place in presence of these prosecution 
witnesses - Identification parade itself was held two 111onths after 
the incident of murder - Their chance meeting was also in the night 
without there being any special occasion for the111 to notice the 
. features of any of the accused which would then register in their 
minds so as to enable them to identifY them on a future date - In the 
circumstances, such identification si111plicitor· cannot for111 the basis 
or be taken as the fulcrum for the entire case of prosecution - The 
suspicion expressed by PW-8 was also not enough to record the 
finding of guilt against the appellant - Prosecution having failed 
to establish its case against the appellant, benefit of doubt granted 
to the appellant and he is acquitted of all charges. 
Criminal law: Acquittal of accused-appellant - Entitlement 
of non-appealing accused to claim acquittal - Held: If on evaluation 
of case, a conclusion is reached that no conviction of any accused 
was possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to the 
265 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
A 
similarly situated co-accused even though he had not challenged 
the order by way of appeal. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, apart from the identification 
by PWs 3, 5 and 16 and their version that they bad seen the 
deceased in the company of four persons on the night intervening 
11.7.1993 and 12.7.1993, there .is nothing which could point in 
the direction of the. guilt of the appellant and non-appealing 
accused. The confessional statement having been discarded, 
there is no other material to lend any corroboration. The matter 
thus stands and rests purely on the identification by PWs 3, 5 and 
16 apart from the suspicion expressed by PW 8. Apart from the 
fact that there was delay in holding the Test Identification Parade, 
one s,triking feature is that none of the concerned prosecution 
witnesses bad given any identification marks or disclosed special 
features or attributes of any of those four persons in general and 
the accused in particular. Further, no incident or crime bad 
actually taken place in the presence of those prosecution 
witnesses no'r any special circumstances had occurred which' would 
invite their' attention so as to register the features or special 
attributes of. the concerned accused. Their chance meeting, iis 
alleged, was. in the night and was only for.some fleeting moments. 
[Paras 13, 15] [273-B-C; 274-E-F] 
Lal Singh and others v. State of U.f. (2003) 12 SCC 
554; Su_bash v. State qf U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 331 : [1987] 
2 SCR 962 ; Musheer Khan v. State of MP. (2010) 2 
SCC 748 : [2010] 2 SCR 119 - relied on. 
2. It is true that in certain cases this Court bad granted 
benefit even to a non-appealing accused. In • Bijoy Singll case, 
this Court observed that if on evaluation of case, a conclusion is 
reached that no conviction of any accused was possible the benefit 
of that decision must be extended to the similarly situated 
co-accused even though be bad not challenged the order by way 
of appeal. In the circumstances, the judgments of conviction 
recorded by the courts below against the appellant is set aside 
and be is acqnitted of all the charges leveled against him. The 
benefit of this acquittal will also enure to the advantage of the 
non- appealing accused. [Paras 19, 20] [276-F-G; 277-B] 
MD. SA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.