Supreme Court: How should the court appreciate evidence if there is a prosecution allegation regarding robbery by an unknown person?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020 

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145, MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if FIR is lodged against unknown persons for the offence of robbery or dacoity?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145 : AIR 2025 SC 1087 : (2025) 3 SCC 341,MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Whether identification of accused before court will be admissible if witness has not identified him in test identification parade?

As regards the claim of Appellant that non-identification of the Accused by the witness would not substantiate the prosecution case, admittedly no prosecution witness has identified the Accused--Appellant which does not mean that the prosecution case against the Accused is on false footing. As a general rule, identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. The purpose of identification test is only to help the investigating agency as to whether the investigation into the offence is proceeding in a right direction or not. In our view, non-identification of the Appellant by any prosecution witness would not vitiate the prosecution case. It is evident from the confessional statement of the Accused that at the time of occurrence he and Anr. Accused Rampati Manjhi were guarding outside the informant's house while other Accused were committing dacoity inside. We do not think that there is any justification to the argument that as none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to identify the Appellant, he cannot be termed as Accused. In our view, such non-identification would not be fatal to the prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances.

15. The identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the Accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration [See: Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, MANU/SC/0043/1958 : 1958 CriLJ 698 and Vaikuntam Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0224/1959 : AIR 1960 SC 1340].

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2009

Decided On: 02.08.2018

 Raju Manjhi  Vs.  State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 3592

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused on basis of test identification parade in case of failure in dock identification?

The Appellant was apprehended on suspicion along with another. The T.I.P. was held without delay on 22.02.2004. Exhibit P-38, the T.I.P. report bears the thumb impression of PW-2 who was accompanied by her mother. The T.I.P. report has been duly proved by PW-11. The Appellant was identified by PW-2. There appears no substantive challenge to the T.I.P. Identification in the dock, generally speaking, is to be given primacy over identification in T.I.P., as the latter is considered to be corroborative evidence. But it cannot be generalized as a universal rule, that identification in T.I.P. cannot be looked into, in case of failure in dock identification. Much will depend on the facts of a case. If other corroborative evidence is available, identification in T.I.P. will assume relevance and will have to be considered cumulatively. In Prakash v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0313/2014 : (2014) 12 SCC 133 it was observed as follows:

16. ...Even so, the failure of a victim or a witness to identify a suspect is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. In Visveswaran v. State it was held:

11. ... The identification of the Accused either in a test identification parade or in court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is otherwise established. Many a time, crimes are committed under the cover of darkness when none is able to identify the Accused. The commission of a crime can be proved also by circumstantial evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2016

Decided On: 28.09.2018

Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi  Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 4760

Print Page

Whether accused can claim test identification parade?

 The evidence as to the identity of a person is
admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(2012) 9 SCC 284, this
Court has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: -
“.... The court identification itself is a good
identification in the eye of the law. It is not always
necessary that it must be preceded by the test
identification parade. It will always depend upon
the facts and circumstances of a given case. In
one case, it may not even be necessary to hold
the test identification parade while in the other, it
may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket
formula can be stated in this regard.”
 In the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala(2013) 14 SCC 266, regarding the evidential value of the test identification parade, this
Court has stated in paragraph 58 as under: -
“.... The identification parade is conducted by the police.
The actual evidence regarding identification is that which
 is given by the witness in court. A test identification
 parade cannot be  claimed by an accused as a matter
 of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test
 identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative
 of the  identification of the accused in court. ....”

 In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v. State
of Tripura8, this Court has made following
observations in para 20 which are reproduced below: -
“..... The primary object of the test identification
parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the
persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if
the offenders are not personally known to the
witnesses.
The whole object behind the test
identification parade is really to find whether or
not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta
Prasad v. Delhi Admn., this Court stated that the
failure to hold the test identification parade does
not make the evidence of identification at the trial
inadmissible. ....”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2478 OF 2014


Motilal Yadav  Vs State of Bihar

Date ;November 25, 2014.

Author: Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Print Page