LexSIDDANKI RAM REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 1119 SIDDANKI RAM REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH . (Criminal Appeal No.· 1852 of 2008) · JULY 27, 2010 [R.M. LODHA AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B s.302 - Murder - Conviction by courts below - c Interference with - HELD: When evidence produced by prosecution neither has quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence, and judgments of courts below will have to be interfered with - In the instant case, trial court and High Court mechanically relied upon the D prosecution evidence that it was the appellant who had attacked the deceased in court premises, without appreciating that it was unsafe to rest conviction upon the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the identification of the accused - Conviction set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article E 136 - Evidence - Test identification parade. Evidence: Identification of accused - Test identification parade - Purpose of - HELD Is to have corroboration to the evidence F of the eye-witnesses in the form of earlier identification - In the instant case, out of the three witnesses who had participated in the test identification parade, two failed to identify the accused as the assailant and the third had seen the accused earlier in the police station - Besides, they had G seen the assailant for a very short time - When an attack is made on the deceased by a mob in a crowded place and the eye witnesses had little time to· see the accused, the substantive evidence should be sufficiently corroborated by 1119 H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 8 S.C.R. A the test identification parade - Penal Code, 1860 - s 302. A charge-sheet was filed against fifteen persons, including the appellant, for murder of the son of the complainant in court premises. A-11 to A-15 were 8 absconding. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant (A-1) u/s. 302 IPC and acquitted A-2 to A-10. The judgment was affirmed by the High Court. In the appeal filed by A-1, it was contended for the appellant that there was no reliable evidence to inculpate C the appellant, as none of the eye-witnesses, namely, PWs 1, 5 and 6, could identify the appellant; and that the test identification parade was not fair as only the appellant and another out of the 8 suspects arrested, were D subjected to the test identification parade. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is true that concurrent findings of fact arrived at on the basis of evidence by the trial court and the High Court are not normally interfered with by this E Court in appeal. But, as has been held by this Court in A. Subair, • when the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence and the judgments of the courts below will have to be interfered F with. This is one such case in which both the trial court and the High Court have mechanically relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 that it was the appellant who had attacked the deceased with an axe in the court premises without appreciating that it was unsafe to rest G conviction upon the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 with regard to the identification of the assailant. [para 22] [1133-F-H; 1134-A-C] *A. Subair v. State of Kera/a (2009) 6 SCC 587; Mankamma v. State of Kera/a 2009 (14 ) SCR 1152 = (2009) H 1 o sec 164, relied on. SIDDANKI RAM REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA 1121 PRADESH 1.2. The evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased, A naming the appellant as the assailant is not reliable because though he has stated that he knew the appellant by name, in the FIR which was lodged in less than an hour after the incident he has not mentioned the name of the appellant. The proceedings cf the test identification B parade show that PW-1 has not identified any of the suspects. The version given by PW-1 in the witness box that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased appears to be based on his suspicion that the appellant out of grudge might have killed the deceased. This c suspicion of PW-1 is borne out by his own testimony. [Para 14-15] [1129-B, C; F-G] Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 (8) SCR 519; (1975) 3 sec 815, relied on. D 1.3. PW-5, who at the relevant time was working as a court constable, claims to have seen the appellant on the date of occurrence when he attacked the deceased by an axe. In the test identification par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.