SHAIKH UMAR AHMED SHAIKH AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1209 · Decided: 28-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAIKH UMAR AHMED SHAIKH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 28, 1998 
[G.T. NANA VAT! AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 198?/Indian Penal 
Code. 1860 : 
A 
B 
S.3(2) rlw s. /49,JPC/s.3021149-Rioting mob-Attack on victims - C 
identity of assailants-Identification parade-Trial court disbelieved evidence 
of identification parade on the ground that suspects were shown to the 
witnesses-But recorded conviction believing the evide11ce of same witnesses 
in court regarding identity of accused-Held when accused were already 
shown to witnesses statements of witnesses indentifYing the accused in court D 
lost all its value and could not be made basis for recording conviction. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Evide.'1ce of identification parade-Suspects stated to have been already 
shown to witnesses-Statements of same witnesses in court regarding identity E 
of accused-Evidentiary value of- In view of the finding of the trial court 
that there was strong possibility that suspects were shown to the witnesses, 
their identification in the cuurt by the witnesses was meaningless. 
Identification parade-Arranged at police station-Accused in custody 
of Investigating Officer-Special Executive Magistrates conducting F 
id::ntification parade not followed guidelines given by High Court-Suspects 
stated to have been already shown to witnesses-Effect of 
The appellants and three others were prosecuted under s. 3(2) (i) of 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read withs. 149 
I.P.C. and ss. 302/149 I.P.C. 
G 
The prosecution case was that when the city of Bombay was in the grip 
of communal riots in December 1992 and some undertrials were kept for 
treatment in J.J. Hospital, a police escort consisting of one Head Constable 
and three Constables were pr<Jvided there. On the day of occurrence 
Constables PW-2 and PW-11 and the Head Constable came out of the Hospital H 
1209 
1210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A after handing over the charge to the next batch of the escort party. The Head 
Constable was walking about 25 feet ahead and PW-2 and PW-11 were 
following him on their way to their respective houses. PW-2 and PW-11 saw 
a mob of about I 00 persons standing on the other side of the road; 5-6 
persons armed\ with choppers and Knives suddenly crossed the road and 
B attacked the Head Constable who collapsed on the ground. The victim was 
taken to the Hospital where he was declared dead. Identification parades were 
held by Special Executive Magistrates in the Police Station, PW-2 and 
PW-11 identified the accused, and the investigation culminated in trial of the 
accused before the Designated Court. 
C 
The Designated Court did not believe the )Videnr.e of identification 
D 
E 
F 
parade, but rellying on the identification of the appellants by the two eye-
witnesses, PW-2 and PW-11, in the Court, convicted the appellants of the 
offences charged and sentenced them the imprisonment for life under each 
of the two counts. The other three accused were acquitted. Aggrieved, the 
appellants filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the Designated Court having 
rejected the evidence of identification parade on the ground that there was 
possibility of the suspects being shown to the eye witnesses at the Police 
Station, erred in convicting the appellants on the evidence of identification 
in the court by the self-same witnesses. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. When the accused were already shown to the witnesses 
the evidence of the witnesses identifying the accused in the court lost all its 
value and could not be made basis for recording conviction against the 
accused. [1216-C] 
1.2. No doubt, the evidence of identification parade is not a substantive 
evidence but is utilised for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses 
in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them the real 
G and substantive evidence of the identity of the accused comes when witnesses 
give statement in the court identifying the accused, but, in the instant case, 
the Designated Court has recorded a finding that there was strong possibility 
that the suspects were shown to the witnesses. Under the cireumstances, 
their identifica1tion in the court by the witnesses was meaningless. The 
reliance on evidence of identification of the accused in the court by PW-2 
H and PW-II by the Designed Court was an erroneous way of deali

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