RAJESH GOVIND JAGESHA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJESH GOVIND JAGESHA 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
Criminal Trial-Sections 302 and 34-Test Identification Parade-Prolonged 
unexplained de/ay--f1R mentioning person with beard and long hairs-No. C 
person with beard and long hairs included in the parade-Alleged accused 
having removed beard and long hairs by the time of identification parade-
Witnesses identifying accused at first sight-Held, under the facts and 
circumstances, accused entitled to benefit of doubt-Possibility of witnesses 
having seen the accused after arrest cannot be ruled CJUI. 
D 
It was alleged that the complainant and his friends, including the 
deceased, were moving about when the appellants along with 'S' came from 
behind and attacked the deceased with swords, chopper and gupti which 
resulted in his death. Witnessing the attack, the complainant and his other 
friends ran from the spot to save their lives. Appellants alongwith 'S' were E 
convicted of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial 
court. Appeal filed by them was dismissed by the High Court. Against the 
order of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 
The appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were interested 
and chance witnesses; that identification parade regarding accused No. 2 was F 
not conducted properly and held after prolonged unexplained delay; that there 
was no motive; and that Section 34 IPC could not be applied as common object 
was not established. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. In cases where a person is alleged to have committed the 
offence and is not previously known to the witnesses, it is obligatory on the 
part of the investigating agency to hold identification parade for the purposes 
of enabling the witnesses to identify the person alleged to have committed the 
offence. The absence of test identification may not be fatal if the accused is 
277 
I-I 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A known or sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind 
of the court regarding his involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately 
after the occurrence. The evidence of identifying the accused person at the 
trial, for the first time, is from its very nature, inherently of a weak character. 
The holding of identification parade being a rule of prudence for corroboration 
B is required to be followed strictly in accordance with the settled position of 
law and expeditiously. The delay, if any, has to be explained satisfactorily by 
the prosecution. (283-C, D, F, G] 
Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P., (1970] 2 SCC 128, relied on. 
C 
1.2. The admitted position is that in the FIR lodged, the name of accused 
No. 2 had not been mentioned. Accused No. 2 was arrested on 20.1.1993 but 
the identification parade was held on 13.2.1993. The explanation for delay in 
holding the identification parade offered by the prosecution is 11ot trustworthy. 
It is not disputed that at the time of identification parade, the appellant was 
D not having beard and long hairs as mentioned at the time of lodging of FIR. It 
is also not disputed that no person with beard and long hairs was included in 
the parade. The witnesses are alleged to have identified the accused No. 2 at 
the first sight despite the fact that he had removed the long hairs and beard. 
What prevented the Magistrate from associating one or two persons having 
resemblance with the persons named in the FIR is a mystery shrouded with 
E doubts and not cleared by the prosecution. The possibility of the witnesses 
having seen the said accused between the date of arrest and the test 
. identification parade cannot be ruled out. As the test identification parade 
regarding accused No.2 was not conducted properly and suffered from 
unexplained delay, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. [281-G; 282-E, F; 283-H] 
F 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. M V. Ramana Reddy & Ors., AIR (1991) 
SC 1938, relied on. 
2. 'Motive' in a criminal case based upon ocular testimony of witnesses 
is not at all relevant. Where the direct evidence regarding the commission of 
G offence is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive 
becomes, more or less, academic. 'Motive may be relevant in a case based 
upon circumstantial evidence only, being one of the circumstances.' 
(284-B-D) 
H 
Gurcharan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1956

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