PRAMOD MANDAL versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 17-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRAMOD MANDAL 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 396-Prosecution case that appellant along 
with six others committed dacoity and murder-All the witnesses supported 
prosecution case-There was nothing to discredit them-Conviction by 
Additional Session Judge, upheld by High Court-On appeal held, there is 
C 
no reason to doubt the genuineness of the Test Identification Prade or the 
veracity of witnesses-Hence no interference called for. 
Criminal Trial: 
Test Identification Parade-Period for completing Test and the number 
D 
of witnesses required to identifY the accused-Neither possible nor prudent 
to lay down invariable rule-These matters to be left to the wisdom of the 
courts of facts. 
Test Identification Prade-Held a month after the occurrence-No 
motive to delay the holding of TIP pleaded and no irregularity alleged-Held, 
delay was not such as would cast a doubt on the ability of the witnesses to 
identifY the accused within 30 days. 
Appellant along with six others was tried for alleged offence 
committed under Section 396 IPC. Except one all accused were convicted 
by Trial Court. Appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High 
Court. Appellant alone has appealed against judgment of the High Court. 
Main contention of appellant is alleged delay in holding Test Identification 
Parade. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. DW-1, who was examined to prove that there was no 
supply of electricity at the time the occurrence took place, was neither 
E 
F 
G 
the author of entry in register nor was he the certifying officer. High 
Court rightly rejected this witness and held there was supply of electricity 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
when occurrence took place and the witnesses, therefore, had sufficient 
light and opportunity to identify the dacoits. (484-E, F) 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. In Wakil Singh 's case the Court has not laid down an invariable 
rule that if the Test Identification Parade is held after three and a half 
months or if there is only one identifying witness, "it would be unsafe 
to convict the accused" because the Court prefaced this observation by 
the words "in the circumstances unless the evidence is absolutely clear". 
(487-B) 
Wakil Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1981] (Supp.) SCC 28 and 
Subhash and Shiv Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1987] 3 SCC 331, 
distinguished. 
Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 368 and Anil Kumar v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) 3 SCC 569, referred to. 
3. The defence has not imputed any motive to the pf"osecution for 
the delay in holding the Test Identification parade, nor has the defence 
alleged that there was any irregularity in the holding of the Test 
Identification Parade. The evidence of the Magistrate conducting the 
Test Identification Parade as well as the Investigating Officer has gone 
unchallenged. In the facts and circumstances of this case the holding of 
the Test Identification Parade, about one month after the occurrences, 
is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as· there is nothing to suggest 
that there was any motive for the prosecution to delay the holding of tllte 
Test Identification Parade or that any irregularity was committed in 
holding the Test Identification Parade. (489-B, C, D) 
Bharat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1973] 3 SCC 896, referred 
to. 
4. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule 
as to the period within which a Test Identification Parade must be held, 
or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to 
sustain conviction. Rule prescribing such period would only benefit the 
professional criminals in whose cases the arrest is delayed as the police 
have no clear clue about their identity, they being persons unknown to 
victims. The offenders may be unknown to the victim and the case 
depends solely on the identification by the victim, who is otherwise found 
to be truthful and reliable. Such cases must be left to the wisdom of the 
PRAMOD MANDAL v. STATE [B.P. SINGH, J.] 
481 
Courts of fact which must consider all aspects of the matter in the light 
A 
of the evidence on the record before pronouncing upon the acceptability 
or rejection of such identification. [489-H; 490-A, B, C, DJ 
Anil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2003) 3 SCC 569; Brij Mohan 
v. State of Rajasthan, [1994) 1 SCC 413; Daya Singh v. State of Har

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