LexP. SASIKUMAR versus THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 87 : 2024 INSC 474 P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302/34 as well as u/ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC, in absence of test identification parade, where accused is a stranger to a witness and the trial court accepted the dock identification by such a witness. Headnotes† Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance – Non- conduct of Test Identification Parade-TIP, effect on prosecution case – On facts, in a brutal murder of a teenager girl allegedly by the main accused and co-accused, conviction and sentence u/s. 302/34, ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC – Appeal by the co-accused, wherein the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, in absence of TIP, where accused is a stranger to a witness and there was dock identification made by witness in court during trial – Correctness: Held: In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness – On facts, TIP was not conducted – All the prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the court were not known to the appellant – They had not seen the appellant prior to the said incident – He was a stranger to both of them – More importantly, both of them have seen the appellant on the date of the crime and that too from a distance while he was wearing a monkey cap which majorly covers the face – Under these circumstances, TIP had become necessary particularly when both the accused, who are alleged to have committed this murder were arrested within two days – No explanation whatsoever has been given by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer as to why TIP was not conducted – High * Author 88 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Court also recorded this flaw in the investigation – Not conducting a TIP was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP, the dock identification of the appellant will always remain doubtful – Doubt always belongs to the accused – Prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt – Not conducting TIP is fatal for the prosecution – Identification of the accused before the court ought to have been corroborated by the previous TIP which was not done – Thus, the identity of the appellant is in doubt – Appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of a very doubtful evidence as to the appellant’s identity – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302/34, s. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16] Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance of: Held: Test identification parade-TIP is only a part of Police investigation – Identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence – Substantive piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in Court during trial – In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness – In a given case, TIP may not be necessary – Non-conduct of a TIP may not prejudice the case of the prosecution or affect the identification of the accused – It would all depend upon the facts of the case – It is possible that the evidence of prosecution witness who has identified the accused in a court is of a sterling nature, thus TIP may not be necessary – It is the task of the investigation team to see the relevance of a TIP in a given case. [Paras 12, 13] Case Law Cited Kunjumon v. State of Kerala [2012] 9 SCR 1032 : (2012) 13 SCC 750; Rajesh v. State of Haryana [2020] 14 SCR 1 : (2021) 1 SCC 118; Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan [2012] 10 SCR 229 : (2012) 9 SCC 284; Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 443 : (2003) 5 SCC 7462; Jayan v. State of Kerala (2021) 20 SCC 38; Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab [2022] 7 SCR 451 : (2022) 9 SCC 402 – referred to. List of Acts Penal code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 89 P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police List of Keywords Test identification parade; Dock identif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.