SURAJ PAL ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 11-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURAJ PAL ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
NOVEMBER 11, 1994 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial 
Test identification parade-Object, Purpose and importance of when 
accused choose on their own volition not to stand test of identification 
without reasonable cause-Absence of text parade-Dock identification C 
whether should be accepted- Held, Yes, if otherwise found to be reliable. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3951396 r/ws 397 and 412-
Dacoity with murders-Eye witnesses-Sufficient light at the place of 
occurrence to enable witnesses to see and identify miscreants-Accused 
declined to submit themselves for identification-Dock identification D 
reliable-Recovery of incriminating articles from possession of accused--
Concurrent finding of conviction-Sustainable. 
The three appellants were convicted u/ss 395/396 r/ws 397 of the 
. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 
396/397 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s 3931397 of the E 
Penal Code. They were further convicted u/s 412 of the Penal Code and 
each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
ten years. On appeal, the High Court agreed with the appreciation of 
evidence made by the trial Court and accepting the finding recorded 
by the Trial Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to 
the appellants. These appeals have been filed against the Judgments of F 
conviction recorded by the Courts below. 
According to the prosecution nine persons including the three 
appellants committed dacoity in a house in which two persons were 
murdered and their son was seriously injured. 
After the arrest of the appellants, the prosecution wanted to hold 
an identification parade in which the eye witnesses had to identify them 
but the appellants declined to offer themselves for test identification 
without any reasonable basis. 
Consequently, the parade could not be held. 
373 
G 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were put on trial. The appellants were identified by 
the witnesses while they were in the dock. In pursuance of the 
disclosure statement, the appellants got discovered some incriminating 
articles. On analysing the evidence, Judgments of conviction were 
recorded. 
B 
In this appeal, the appellants urged that the incident had occurred 
in the mid night and there was no light at or around the place of 
occurrence in order to enable the witnesses to see the miscreants who 
had actually committed the dacoity. After a close scrutiny and on 
analysing the evidence the two courts have already recorded a finding 
that there was sufficient electric light in the house of deceased as well as 
C 
on the street which enabled the witnesses to see and identify the 
miscreants including the appellants. 
D 
F 
G 
H 
The appellants next submitted that the prosecution had not pressed 
the evidence regarding the i~entification of articles, said to have been 
seized from the appellants which rests entirely on the dock 
identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses. It was 
further alleged that prosecution witnesses under the facts and 
circumstances Clf the case were not in a position to see and identify the 
miscreants including the appellants who were said to have committed 
the dacoity coupled with two murders. It was further contended that 
the evidence of these witnesses came to be recorded after five years 
and, therefore, in the absence of test identification parade it was not 
possible for these two witnesses to have remembered the description 
and features of the appellants so as to enable them to identify in the 
dock after such a long lapse of time. It was further submitted that the 
appellants were within their right in declining to submit themselves for 
test identification parade and the two courts below were not justified 
in accepting the evidence on the basis of dock identification. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1 It is clear from the evidence that though the prosecution 
was anxiously taking steps to hold the test identification parade the 
appellants themselves declined to submit themselves for test parade. 
They did so on their own risk for which the prosecution could not be 
blamed for not holding the test parade. There is absolutely no basis to 
say that the· appellants or any of them were shown to the witnesses. If 
the appellants in exercise of their own volition had chosen not to stand 
the test of identifica

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