RAVI@ RAVICHANDRAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VI@ RA VICHANDRAN 
v. 
STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Murder-Prosecution for-Publication of 
' 
the names and photographs of the accused and co-accused in daily newspaper 
c 
as being responsible for the incident-Names of assailants not mentioned in 
FIR-Test Identification Parade ten days after the publication of 
photographs-Photographs of accused taken to Police Station-Conviction 
by courts below-On appeal, held: the accused was entitled for benefit of 
doubt, in absence of his proper identification-A conviction can be arrived 
at even in absence of Test Identification Parade, but the same cannot be 
D based on vague identification-Evidence Act, 1872-s.9-Test Identification 
Parade. 
Appellant-accused along with co-accused 'U' and three other co-accused 
were trial u/ss. 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC for having caused 
death of one person. 
E 
Prosecution case was that PW-1 (informant) saw the accused persons 
assaulting the deceased and PW-3. FIR was lodged against unknown persons. 
No mark of identification was also disclosed therein. At the time of preparation 
I 
.. 
of Inquest Report, informant disclosed the Investigating Officer that he had 
F 
noticed a scar on the right hand of one of the accused. Appellant-accused and 
il 
co-accused 'U' were arrested. Their photographs were published in local daily 
with the caption that they were the persons accused of murder of the deceased. 
.
Ten days thereafter the accused were put on Test Identification Parade. PW-
1 and PW-3 identified the appellant. PW-2 and 4 could not identify. 
G 
puring trial, publication of the photographs was proved by DW-1. Trial 
Court held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him under section 302 
IPC. Co-accused 'U' was convicted under Section 307 IPC. Other three 
accused were acquitted. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence, the present 
appeal 
H 
766 
RA VI@RA VICHANDRAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
767 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The manner in which the occurrence took place as well as 
the conduct of the prosecution witnesses do not lead to an inference that the 
appellant has properly been identified. He is at least entitled to benefit of doubt. 
[Para 25) [774-B) 
B 
1.2. The test identification parade was held after ten days. It is also not 
in dispute that the photographs of the accused were taken at the police station. 
.,. 
The Investigation Officer allowed them to be published. Photographs of the 
. ' 
appellant and the co-accused 'U' were not only published, according to the 
prosecution witnesses, they were shown to be accused in the aforementioned 
crime. Some of them admittedly were aware of the said publication. The c 
purported test identification parade which was held ten days thereafter loses 
all significance, in the aforementioned fact situation. (Para 16) [771-D-E] 
1.3. It is no doubt true that the substantive evidence of identification of 
an accused is the one made in the court. A judgment of conviction can be 
arrived at even if no test identification parade has been held. But when a First D 
Information Report has been lodged against unknown persons, a test 
.. 
identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, is held for the 
~ 
purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of 
identifying persons who were unknown to him. The witnesses were not very 
sure as to whether they had seen the appellant before. Had the accused been 
known, their identity would have been disclosed in the First Information Report. E 
PW-1 for the first time before the court stated that he had known the accused 
from long before, but did not know their names earlier, although he came to 
know of their names at a later point of time. (Para 17] [771-F-G) 
1.4. In a case of this nature, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to 
... 
~ 
arrange a test identification parade. Such test identification parade was F 
required to be held as early as possible so as to exclude the possibility of the 
accused being identified either at the police station or at some other place by 
the concerned witnesses or with reference to the photographs published in 
the newspaper. A conviction should not be based on a vague identification. 
(Para 18) [771-H; 772-A) 
G 
.... 
1.5. Publication of the news item with photographs has clearly been 
proved by DW-1. Prosecution witness

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