SURENDRA NARAIN @ MUNNA PANDEY versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 07-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'A 
-
SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEY 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OFU:P. 
NOVEMBER 7, 1997 
[M.M. PUNCHHJ AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Murder-Testimony of eye 
witnesses-FIR mentioning name of the accused-Surrender by accused-
Demand for identification parade-Rejected by Chief Metropolitan C 
Magistrate-On appeal Sessions Court's directions for identification parade-
Jdentification not held-Conviction by Trial Court-Confirmed by High 
Court-Held, failure to hold identification parade not fatal to the 
prosecution-Evidence has to be weighed and not counted-Once fact of the 
· murder is proved, no necessity to prove motive. 
The appellant was prosecuted under section 302 IPC. The case of the 
prosecution was that the deceased · P' was going in a rickshaw with his 
servant PW 3 followed by PW I and PW 2. The appellant-accused arrived 
at the spot and shot the deceased with a pistol and sped away. The witnesses 
proceeded to the police station and lodged a complaint. The victim was taken 
to th.e hospital where he was declared dead. The name of the accused was 
mentioned by PW I in the FIR. The accused was related to the deceased as 
a son of his "sala" and PW I was also related to the deceased. The accused 
was not traceable from 7.4.1977 till he surrendered before the Court on 
13.5. 77 and moved an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 
D 
E 
for his identification parade. The said application was dismissed. On challenge, F 
the Sessions Court issued directions for holding identification parade. But 
no identification parade was held. Meanwhile, the Trial Court after examining 
the witnesses found that the accused was guilty of murder punishable under 
sedion 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860. On appeal, the High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life. G 
Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant inter alia was that the failure of the 
·police to put up the appellant for identification parade inspite of an order of 
the Court of Sessions is.fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as the appellant 
has challenged the claim of PWs I to 3 thatthey knew him already. 
H 
97 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The failure to hold the test identification parade on demand 
by the accused inspite of an order passed by the Sessions Court is not fatal 
to the prosecution. It is only one of the relevant factors to be taken into 
consideration along with the other evidence on record. If the claim of the 
B ocular witnesses that they knew the accused already is found to be true, the 
failure to hold a test identification parade is inconsequeniial. The application 
of the accused for the test identification parade on his surrender after such 
a long time does not appear to be bone fide. Besides the point does not seem 
to have been argued before the trial court or the High Court. The evidence 
C on record as accepted by the courts below is sufficient to prove the guilt of 
the accused.1107-C; F-GI 
Re Sangi ah 49 Cr. L.J. 89 Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR 
(1958) SC 350; State v. Dhanpat, AIR (1960) Pat. 582; Asharfi & Anr. v. The 
State, (1961) I Crl. L.J. 340; Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR (1970) 
D SC 1321; Tek Chand v. State, AIR (1965) Punjab 146; Jadunath Singh v. 
State of H.P., AIR (1971) SC 363; State ofU.P. v. Rajju, AIR (1971) SC 708; 
Go/am Majibuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1972) Crl. L.J. 1342; Rameshwar 
Singh v. State of J &K, AIR (1972) SC 102; Dhara111vir v. State of MP., 
[197414SCC150; Mahtab Singh v. The State of MP., (1975( 3 SCC 407; 
Harbhajan Singh v. State of J&K, AIR (1975) SC 1814; Kanan v. State of 
E Kera/a, AIR (1979) SC 1127; Narendra Singh v. State of H.P., 1198712 SCC 
236 and Ro111esh Ku111ar v. State of Punjab (1993) Crl. L.J. 1800, referred 
to. 
F 
G 
Shri Ram v. The State of U.P., 119751 3 SCC 495, distinguished. 
1.2. In the instant case PW I had mentioned the name of the accused 
in the FIR. The other two eye witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 also knew the 
accused previously. The crucial factor is that the accused was related to the 
deceased as a son of his "sala" and PW 1 was also related to the deceased. 
The accused had never denied the relationship. ( 107-D-E] 
2. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is adequate to prove the 
charge. The non-examination of another person who was on the scene of 
occurrence does no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.