MUKESH SINGH versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 24-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 886 : 2023 INSC 765
CASE DETAILS
MUKESH SINGH
v.
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1554 of 2015)
AUGUST 24, 2023
[M. M. SUNDRESH AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration:
(i) Whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the 
appeal fi led by the appellant convict and thereby affi  rming the judgment and 
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the alleged 
off ences?;
(ii) Whether an accused can decline to participate in the TIP on the 
ground that he was already shown to the eye witnesses prior to the conduct 
of the TIP and in such circumstances, the TIP would be nothing short of 
creating evidence against him?;
(iii) Can an accused decline to participate in the TIP that the 
investigating offi  cer may propose to hold in the course of investigation 
on the ground that no person accused of any off ence shall be compelled 
to be a witness against himself? To put it in other words, can an accused 
decline to subject himself to the TIP on the ground that the same violates 
his fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution?;
(iv) To what extent the Court can draw an adverse inference against 
the accused for having refused to participate in the TIP? Whether by virtue 
of drawing such adverse inference, is it open for the Court to accept the 
substantive evidence of identifi cation before the Trial Court without any 
corroboration to such identifi cation?;
(v) What is the true purport of Section 54A of the CrPC?;
886
887
(vi) Whether the Courts below were justifi ed in placing reliance on the 
discovery of weapon of off ence and the currency notes from the residence 
of the appellant convict as one of the incriminating circumstances against 
the appellant convict?
Test Identifi cation Parade – Whether an accused can decline to 
participate in the TIP on the ground that he was already shown to the 
eye witnesses prior to the conduct of the TIP:
Held: The accused while subjecting himself to the TIP does not 
produce any evidence or perform any evidentiary act – It may be a positive 
act and even a volitional act, but only to a limited extent, when the accused 
is brought to the place where the TIP is to be held – It is certainly not his 
evidentiary act – The accused concerned may have a legitimate ground to 
resist facing the TIP saying that the witnesses had a chance to see him either 
at the police station or in the Court, as the case may be, however, on such 
ground alone he cannot refuse to face the TIP – It is always open for the 
accused to raise any legal ground available to him relating to the legitimacy 
of the TIP or the evidentiary value of the same in the course of the trial – 
However, the accused cannot decline or refuse to join the TIP. [Para 35]
Test Identifi cation Parade – Whether TIP violates the fundamental 
right of an accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Held: What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is 
procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an 
accused – It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a 
test identifi cation parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive 
volitional evidentiary act – His mere attendance or the exhibition of his 
body at a test identifi cation parade even though compelled, does not result 
in any evidentiary act until he is identifi ed by some other agency – The 
identifi cation of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is 
exhibited for the purpose – If the coercion is sought to be imposed in getting 
from an accused evidence which cannot be procured save through positive 
volitional act on his part, the constitutional guarantee as enshrined under 
Article 20(3) of the Constitution will step in to protect him – However, if 
that evidence can be procured without any positive volitional evidentiary 
act on the part of the accused, Article 20(3) of the Constitution will have 
no application. [Paras 26 and 35]
MUKESH SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Test Identifi cation Parade – The test identifi cation parade provides 
corroboration to the identifi cation of the witness in court:
Held: It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence 
of identification in court and the test identification parade provides 
corroboration to the identifi cation of the witness in court, if required – 
However, what weight must be attached to the evidenc

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