RAJA versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1187 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1187
RAJA
v.
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No.740 of 2018 Etc.)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code,1860:
ss. 394, 396, 449, 395/397 – Prosecution under – Of seven
accused – Five injuredeye-witnesses – Accused Nos.1 to 6 were
identified in Test Identification Parade by all the eye-witnesses –
Conviction by trial court of the six accused and accused No.7
acquitted – High Court affirmed the order of trial court – Appeal
to Supreme Court by the convicted accused – Held: In the
circumstances of the case, the presence and participation of
accused Nos. 1 to 6 stood proved through eye-witness account –
There is no infirmity in the evidence of identification by the eye-
witnesses – Conviction affirmed.
Test Identification Parade(TIP):
Evidentiary value of – TIP which is part of investigation,
affords a platform to lend corroboration to the ultimate statements
made by the witness before the court – Weightage to such TIP is
to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case – In
cases where material on record sufficiently indicates the reason for
“gaining an enduring impression of the identity on the mind and
memory of the witnesses”, non-holding of TIP in such cases would
not be fatal to prosecution case.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 What is substantive piece of evidence of
identification of an accused, is the evidence given during the
trial. However, by the time the witnesses normally step into the
box to depose, there would be substantial time gap between the
date of the incident and the actual examination of the witnesses.
If the accused or the suspects were known to the witnesses from
before and their identity was never in doubt, the lapse of time
may not qualitatively affect the evidence about identification of
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1187
1187
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
such accused, but the difficulty may arise if the accused were
unknown. In such cases, the question may arise about the
correctness of the identification by the witnesses. The lapse of
time between the stage when the witnesses had seen the
accused during occurrence and the actual examination of the
witnesses may be such that the identification by the witnesses
for the first time in the box may be difficult for the court to place
complete reliance on. In order to lend assurance that the
witnesses had, in fact, identified the accused or suspects at the
first available opportunity, the TIP which is part of the
investigation affords a platform to lend corroboration to the
ultimate statements made by the witnesses before the Court.
However, what weightage must be given to such TIP is a matter
to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case.
There is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the
TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. [Para 15] [1198-
G-H; 11998-A-C]
1.2 If the material on record sufficiently indicates that
reasons for “gaining an enduring impression of the identity on
the mind and memory of the witnesses” are available on record,
the matter stands in a completely different perspective. In such
cases even non-holding of identification parade would not be fatal
to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, in view of
the fact that each of the eyewitnesses had suffered number of
injuries in the transaction, it can safely be inferred that every
one of them had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused
to have an enduring impression of the identity of the assailants.
It is not as if the witnesses had seen the assailants, in a mob
and from some distance. Going by the injuries, the contact with
the accused must have been from a close distance. [Para 18]
[1205-G-H; 1206-A]
1.3 Furthermore, in the present case all the accused were
arrested on 21.06.1999 except Accused No.6 who surrendered
before the Magistrate on 22.06.1999 and was remanded to
judicial custody. After securing permissions from the Magistrate,
the police custody of Accused No.6 was obtained on 01.07.1999
and the TIP was held on 01.07.1999 itself. There was, thus, no
delay on part of the investigating machinery in getting TIP held
on 01.07.1999. [Para 19] [1206-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1189
1.4 With respect to PWs 1, 2 and 3, though there is some
room to say that the accused were shown to the witnesses while
they were in custody, that part by itself may not be sufficient.
Testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 stand on a different footing. 

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