LexMUNNA versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MUNN A v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AUGUST 27, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Criminal Trial-Test Identification Parade-Accuser's refusal to participate-Effect of-Held: In such cases prosecution proceeds in a normal c manner like other cases and relies upon the testimony of witnesses recorded in the Court during course of trial-On facts, accused refusing to participate in TIP, .identification of accused in Court for first time, accused not named in FIR or statement in Court under Section 161 Cr.P.C.-Further no reason to falsely implicate accused-Identity of accused also established-Hence, case established against the accused and he was rightly convicted by trial Court- D Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392 and 1208-Evidence Act,1872-Sections 9 and 3-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 161. According to the prosecution, four persons committed robbery in a house where a lady was alone. It is alleged that the robbers broke open the lock of the almirah and removed currency notes and other articles. E Appellant-accused removed gold bangles from the hands of the lady. Her husband entered the house by breaking open the door on hearing her shouts. Seeing him the appellant-accused jumped out on the road from the balcony of the house with currency notes. Other two accused all>o jumped but the husband caught one of them who was later taken into F custody. Hearing the commotion, Head Constable on patrol duty also arrived and saw robbers jumping from the balcony and running away. FIR was lodged. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused in custody his companions in the crime were arrested. Appellant-accused was arrested and knife was recovered from his possession. He refused to participate in the test identification parade. Charges were framed. Trial G Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused with others; however one of them was acquitted. The two accused have not preferred any appeal. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused . • Appellant-accused contended that he belonged to another town and H 1048 MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 1049 was not at all known to the witnesses from before; that he was neither A named in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and, therefore, the statement of the witnesses given in Court for the first time where they identified and pointed towards appellant- accused as being one of the robbers who had participated in the commission of the crime, was of no value and could not be relied upon. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The normal rule is that the testimony !>fa witness, who does not know an accused from before and identifies him for the first time B in the Court as a person who had participated in the commission of the C crime, without holding a previous identification parade does not ca:rry much weight. The substantive evidence of a witness is the statement in Court but as a rule of prudence earlier identification proceedings are held in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness given in Court as regards the identity of the accused who is not known to him from before. (1056-C, DI D 1.2. The abovesaid rule can have no application to a case where the accused refuses to participate in the test identification parade. The prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in E Court during the course of the trial of the case. In such a case, accused cannot contend that the statement of the eye-witnesses made for the first time in Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied upon. This plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a test identification parade. (1056-H; 1057-A, 61 F 1.3. There is no straight jacket formula that in a case where the accused is not named in the F.l.R. or in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or is not otherwise known from before, the testimony of a witness for the first time in Court, without a prior test identification parade, G becomes valueless. The testimony of such a witness has to be judged like that of any other witness having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that prior identification proceedings had not been held. [1058-E, Fl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.