RAM BABU versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 19-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 4 S.C.R. 771 
RAM BABU 
A 
... 
. 
' 
, 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2008) 
APRIL 19, 2010 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 9 - Test identification parade -
Relevance of -
Held: Identification parade belongs to 
investigation stage - Its purpose is to test and strengthen 
C 
trustworthiness of the substantive evidence of a witness in 
court - Evidence with regard to test identification parade may 
be used by court for the purpose of corroboration, if adequate 
precautions are ensured - On facts, accused committed 
offence of dacoity - Conviction u/s. 395 /PC and sentence of D 
five years rigorous imprisonment by courts below, on basis 
of identification does not call for interference - Identification 
of accused established by substantive evidence duly 
corroborated by test identification parade - Test identification 
parade does not suffer from any undue and unexplained 
E 
delay - Grounds on which two accused were given benefit of 
doubt does not affect the test identification parade or 
credibility of evidence of prosecution witnesses in the court.:.. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 395. 
F 
It is alleged that the appellants and others armed with 
weapons committed dacoity in a temple and caused 
injuries to two sadhus. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9-
inmates of the temple along with other sadhus were 
present at the time of the incident. PW 1-mahant lodged 
an FIR. The investigating officer arrested the accused 
G 
persons on different date!!· Thereafter, the test 
identification parade was held under the supervision of 
PW-14-magistrate. Three prosecution witnesses were 
examined to prove the arrest of the accused. A-1, A-2, A-
771 
H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 4 S.C.R. 
A 4 and A-5 were convicted for the offence u/s. 395 IPC and 
sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. A-3 and 
A-6 were acquitted. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
l 
HELD: 1. As per s. 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, facts 
which establish the identity of an accused are relevant. 
Identification parade belongs to investigation stage and 
if adequate precautions are ensured, the evidence with 
regard to test identification parade may be used by the 
C court for the purpose of corroboration. The purpose of 
test identification parade is to test and strengthen 
trustworthiness of the substantive evidence of a witness 
in court. It is for this reason that test identification parade 
is held under the supervision of a magistrate to eliminate 
D any suspicion or unfairness and to reduce the chances 
of testimonial error as magistrate is expected to take all 
possible precautions. [Para 10] [778-F-H; 779-A] 
2.1. In the instant case, PW-14 supervised the test 
E identification parade held in District Jail, Mathura on June 
4, 1980. He proved identification memos in his deposition. 
He deposed that all possible precautions were taken in 
conduct of the test identification parade held on that date. 
As a matter of fact, there is no challenge to his testimony. 
Regarding the substantive evidence, all the three 
F appellants-A-2, A-4 and A-5 were identified by PW-3 and 
PW-9 in the Court. A-2 and A-4 were also identified by PW-
2 in the Court. Being inmates, their presence in the temple 
at the time of incident was natural. All of them were having 
their food in the chowk at that time. There was sufficient 
G light for enabling them to identify the dacoits is also 
established. Besides bulbs and tube lights, according to 
these witnesses, the light was also available from two gas 
petromaxes. Pertinently, the appellants did not contest 
the finding recorded by the trial court as well as the High 
H Court in this regard. [Para 11] [779-D-H] 
RAM BABU v. STATE OF U.P. 
773 
2.2. The prosecution also examined large number of A 
witnesses to adduce link evidence to the effect that right 
from the arrest of the accused persons till being lodged 
in jail, the faces of the suspects were kept veiled and 
nowhere was the opportunity to see them. The trial court 
gave benefit of doubt to A-3 as the prosecution failed to 
B 
furnish any explanation as to why he could not be 
confined in jail or presented before a Magistrate on the 
day of arrest itself, i.e. April 30, 1980. The trial court found 
that, although A-3 was arrested on April 30, 1980 at about 
6.15 a.m. but he was produced before the Court on the c 
next day despite the fact that Magistrate was available 
hardly 8 kil

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