Arrest Memo Mentioned Murder Offence Even Before Body Was Recovered : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittals

 The High Court has, in our considered opinion, rightly

doubted the prosecution case insofar as the alleged recovery of

the dead body at the instance of accused Balraj @ Tiloo is

concerned. The reasons assigned by the High Court are cogent

and borne out from the record. Firstly, because at the time of

arrest of accused Balraj @ Tiloo police was not aware that the

deceased had been killed as PW1 merely filed a missing report,

then how come on the arrest memo filed on the very same date it

was mentioned that the accused was arrested for offence under

Sections 302, 394 and 201 of IPC. Secondly, the testimony of

P.W.5 Basant Singh, an independent witness, materially

undermines the prosecution case. PW5 in his testimony stated

that police had already visited and examined well from where the

dead body was discovered on 28.04.2007 itself, however since the

boring machine was not available, the dead body was recovered

on 29.04.2007. Further P.W.5 stated that none of the accused

people were present on the spot when the recovery was being

made. High Court observed that the Trial Court has totally

ignored the testimony of PW5, which is a crucial piece of evidence as the said testimony challenges the position of the prosecution. Thirdly, the requirement of independent witnesses, more particularly, as per Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. is to provide

credibility to the investigation. In the present case, admittedly,

the dead body was recovered in the presence of one witness i.e.

P.W. 2 who happens to be uncle of deceased and another person

namely, Ramawtar who has not been produced by the

prosecution for his examination before the Court. {Para 29}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1353-1355 OF 2017

PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA  Vs  MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

Author: PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 539.

Dated: MAY 25, 2026.

Print Page

Omission To Conduct TIP Of Recovered Articles Material When Case Is Based Solely On Recoveries: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict

Furthermore, another very crucial missing link in the prosecution case that it failed to conduct the Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the recovered articles, thereby, bringing the identification of the material objects in Court for the first time, is under a cloud of doubt. It is a case of sheer negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Agency and the Public Prosecutor for not conducting Test Identification Parade(TIP). This Court shed light on the purpose of Test Identification Parade(TIP) in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0044/1954 : (1954) 2 SCC 516, wherein it held as follows:

20. ... These parades are held by the police in the course of their investigation for the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned in the offence. ...the identifying witnesses are explained the purpose of holding these parades and are asked to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or the persons who are concerned in the offence. {Para 22}

(emphasis supplied)

23. This Court has further noted the significance of Test Identification Parade(TIP) in Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh   MANU/SC/0524/2012 : (2012) 6 SCC 174, wherein it was held:

66. There was some delay in holding the identification parade. But the delay per se cannot be fatal to the validity of holding an identification parade, in all cases, without exception. The purpose of the identification parade is to provide corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in its nature. ...........

(emphasis supplied)

24. Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer(PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013 

Decided On: 22.01.2025

Thammaraya and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, , Sanjay Karol,  and Sandeep Mehta, , JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0110/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Test identification Parade of accused becomes unreliable?

 Circumstance Six: Test Identification Parade

38. The investigating authorities conducted a test identification parade - asking PW-5 to identify the Appellant- convict from a long line of habitual offenders. He did so thrice. This has been taken as another circumstance against the convict Appellant. Before proceeding to the merits of this circumstance, let us appreciate the law on this point.

38.1 No provision of law casts an obligation upon the investigating authorities to conduct a test identification parade. If it is conducted, the provision that governs is Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure [See: Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0964/2004 : 2004:INSC:648 : (2005) 9 SCC 631; Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0445/2003 : 2003:INSC:308 : (2003) 5 SCC 746; Visveswaran v. State   MANU/SC/0352/2003 : 2003:INSC:262 : (2003) 6 SCC 73; and Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura   MANU/SC/0168/2014 : 2014:INSC:167 : (2014) 4 SCC 747.]

38.2 The onus to show that the T.I.P. has been conducted in accordance with law lies on the prosecution, and only after this burden stands prima facie discharged, does the question of considering objections in this regard arise. [See: Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand   MANU/SC/1412/2021 : (2021) 17 SCC 616.]

38.3 It is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its only purpose is for the investigating authorities to analyse the correctness, or lack thereof, of the direction in which they are steering the investigation. [See: Hari Nath v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0229/1987 : 1987:INSC:315 : (1988) 1 SCC 14; and Iqbal v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0559/2015 : 2015:INSC:387 : (2015) 6 SCC 623]

38.4 If the prosecution does not establish, by examination of witnesses to the T.I.P., and the Magistrate entrusted therewith, it cannot be said that it was conducted per law. [See: Umesh Chandra (supra).]

38.5 There is no hard and fast Rule about delay in conducting T.I.P. being fatal to the case of the prosecution. In certain cases, relatively small delay has been considered fatal yet in others, a delay of as much as 40 days is not fatal. [See: Raja v. State   MANU/SC/1717/2019 : 2019:INSC:1346 : (2020) 15 SCC 562.]

38.6 The prosecution must establish that prior to the test identification parade being conducted, the witness had no opportunity to see the Accused. In other words, the Accused must be kept 'baparda'. [See: Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala   MANU/SC/1486/2022 : 2022:INSC:1199 : (2023) 1 SCC 180; and Budhsen v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0103/1970 : 1970:INSC:131 : (1970) 2 SCC 128.]

38.7 If the above has not been ensured, the evidence of the T.I.P. becomes inadmissible. It has also been held that if, prior to the T.I.P. the witness has the opportunity to see even the photograph of the Accused person, such process becomes inconsequential. [See: Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/7994/2007 : 2007:INSC:1014 : (2007) 12 SCC 654; C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.   MANU/SC/0655/2010 : 2010:INSC:553 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; and Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/1025/1998 : 1998:INSC:202 : (1998) 5 SCC 103.]

38.8 Dock identification by the informant, even in the absence of T.I.P., can be accepted, but generally, as a matter of prudence, a witness's identification of an Accused in Court is sought to be corroborated by the identification by the former of the latter in previously conducted identification proceedings [Rajesh v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0818/2020 : 2020:INSC:628 : (2021) 1 SCC 118; and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)   MANU/SC/0575/2017 : 2017:INSC:448 : (2017) 6 SCC 1.]

38.9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is open for the Court to draw an adverse inference against the witness, should they put forth a refusal to participate in the identification proceedings. [See: Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi)   MANU/SC/0602/2020 : 2020:INSC:496 : (2020) 7 SCC 391.]

39. It is plain as day that the above principles were not observed in the present case. We are constrained to record our astonishment as to how the Courts below considered the identification proceedings as a circumstance accruing against the Appellant-convict. It is undoubted that PW-50, in his testimony, gives sufficient detail as to the procedure followed in conducting the T.I.P., and on that count, no assault can be made thereon, however, as the preceding paragraph establishes, there are other equally crucial factors. It is a matter of record that PW-5 (the witness who participated in the T.I.P.), in his testimony, stated that about a week after he gave information to the concerned police about the incident of 14th May, 2011, he saw the Appellant- convict at the said police station. Most importantly, as has come on record, the police officials had informed him about the Appellant-convict committing the crime. As held by Budhsen (supra) as far back as the year 1970, by Suryamoorthy v. Govindaswamy   MANU/SC/0591/1989 : (1989) 3 SCC 24 in 1989, Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0500/1994 : 1994:INSC:246 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80 in 1995, Mulla v. State of U.P   MANU/SC/0091/2010 : 2010:INSC:89 : (2010) 3 SCC 508 in 2010, i.e., well before the judgment of the learned Trial Court was pronounced, that if the said witness had the opportunity to see the Accused, in any form, after the incident the subject matter of testimony, but prior to the identification proceedings, it would render the same to be ineffective. Then, in our view, the courts below committed an error of elephantine proportions in considering these proceedings as forming one of the chains of circumstances against the Appellant-convict.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines Regarding procedure to be followed regarding DNA evidence from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused,

 This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48- hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required. {Para 44}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court:Dock identification without prior TIP is weak/unreliable, especially when the accused were strangers and the witness had not earlier described their identifying features

 Demistalkumar(PW-12) was also made to identify the Accused persons in the dock, but that is another story which we shall consider at a later stage. The witness identified the Accused Appellants as the offenders. However, we find that the lame attempt by PW-12 to make dock identification of the Accused in his deposition recorded after nearly two and a half years of the incident is absolutely flimsy and unacceptable. The witness had not given out either the names or the description of the features of the Accused in his police statement and thus, if at all, the prosecution was desirous of getting the Accused identified at the hands of this witness, then he should have been made to identify the Accused persons in a Test Identification Parade during the investigation. Thus, the identification of the Accused by Demistalkumar(PW-12) for the first time in the dock is totally unbelievable and unacceptable.

{Para 23}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023 and 112 of 2024

Decided On: 08.08.2024

Allarakha Habib Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0856/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

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

Supreme Court: 'Dock Identification Without Test Identification Parade Unreliable When Witness Had No Familiarity With Accused'

 Both PW-3 and PW-4 thus identified the Appellants for the first time in court. No TIP was conducted, even though PW-3 admitted he had never known the Accused earlier. It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the Accused. In P. Sasikumar v. State   MANU/SC/0569/2024 : 2024:INSC:474 : (2024) 8 SCC 600, this Court acquitted the Accused on precisely this ground. {Para 41}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018

Decided On: 06.10.2025

Nazim and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: S.C. Sharma, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1365/2025.

Print Page

Non-Examination Of Magistrate Who Conducted Test Identification Parade Strikes Severe Blow On Prosecution And Cause Of Justice; Orissa HC Sets Aside Conviction

Above all, the prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why the Magistrate, who conducted T.I. parade was not examined to prove the report, inasmuch as many things the defence could have brought out by way of cross-examination of the Magistrate regarding the irregularities or procedural infirmities, if any, made during conduct of the T.I. parade. Recently, in the case of Umesh Chandra and others -Vrs.-State of Uttarakhand reported in MANU/SC/1412/2021 : (2021) 17 Supreme Court Cases 616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed concern about non-examination of Magistrates to prove the sanctity of T.I. parade and observed as follows:

"10. But more important than that, the test identification parade being a part of the investigation, has to be proved by the prosecution as having been held in accordance with law. The onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the T.I parade was held in accordance with law. It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid T.I parade having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises. If the prosecution has failed to establish that a T.I parade was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove. In the present case, a Magistrate is stated to have conducted the T.I parade. The Magistrate has not been examined. No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined."

Thus, it is undisputed that the Public Prosecutor has a duty to examine the Magistrate who conducts the T.I. parade so that the legal sanctity of the T.I. parade report can be ascertained during the trial. Non-examination of the Magistrate strikes a severe blow not only to the prosecution case but also to the cause of justice as irregularities, if any, committed in such T.I. parade cannot be canvassed and discussed by the trial Court in his absence from the witness box. In the present case, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the Magistrate was not examined in the Court to prove the T.I. parade report. In the case in hand, the prosecution has proved the T.I. parade report through P.W.4, the informant who has stated that he had signed the T.I. parade report and accordingly, the report was marked as Ext.2 and the signature of P.W.4 was marked as Ext.2/1. Mere marking of the T.I. parade report is not enough inasmuch as the person who conducted the T.I. parade could only highlight what precautions he took, what procedure he followed during such T.I. parade. Lapses, if any, on his part during the proceedings of the T.I. parade which strikes at the root of the identification evidence, can be brought out by the defence counsel in the cross-examination. If the Magistrate is dead or his attendance could not be procured during trial for any reason, the trial Court has to specifically mention the same in the order-sheet and thereafter the prosecution can adduce cogent evidence to prove such T.I. parade report. Identification proceedings are not conducted for the pleasure of the prosecution. It has got a valuable purpose even though the identification test does not constitute substantive evidence.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA Nos. 21 of 2012, 504 of 2012 and 719 of 2012

Decided On: 04.04.2024

Baikuntha Bhoi and Ors. Vs. State of Odisha

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.K. Sahoo, J.

Citation: MANU/OR/0369/2024.

Print Page

Test Identification Parade in Criminal Trials: Evidence Appreciation, Judicial Safeguards & Case-Law Analysis

 Introduction

In criminal trials involving offences such as dacoity and robbery, identification of the accused by the victims or witnesses is often the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. The Test Identification Parade (TIP)—a procedure whereby witnesses identify suspects in a line-up prior to trial—is a critical investigative tool that can make or break the prosecution’s narrative. Yet, its evidentiary value and reliability have repeatedly come under judicial scrutiny, especially when procedural lapses occur, such as the non-examination of the executive magistrate who conducted the parade.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of TIP’s legal status, evidentiary nuances, mandatory precautions, and recent trends in Supreme Court and Bombay High Court jurisprudence. It is designed as a reference for judges, advocates, and executive magistrates handling identification evidence in serious crime cases.

Print Page

Appreciating Test Identification Parade Evidence and Precautions for Executive Magistrates

 Key Takeaway:

Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) evidence is confirmatory and not substantive; it serves to corroborate in-court identification. Its value depends entirely on strict adherence to procedural safeguards by the executive magistrate. Failure to call the magistrate as a witness or to observe precautions may render TIP evidence inadmissible or unreliable.

1. TIP Evidence: Substantive vs. Corroborative

Under Indian law, identification of accused before the court is substantive evidence, whereas identification at a TIP is only corroborative. The Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that:

Print Page

Supreme Court: Victim identifying unknown accused Without Test Identification For First Time During Trial After Many Years Raises Doubts

 Furthermore, no identification parade has been conducted in the present matter. While identification by a witness in a given case for the first time in witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the Trial Court, for the first  time, would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. {Para 15}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2014

VENKATESHA & ORS.  Vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Dated: 09 JANUARY, 2025.

Citation: 2025 INSC 103.

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can not convict accused based on her dock identification in absence of prior test identification parade?

Undisputedly, the test identification parade was not conducted, after the arrest of the appellant, in this crime. The police officials identified the appellant for the first time at the time of their respective evidence. As observed above, the police officials had not seen the appellant on the spot. The test identification parade was not conducted. In my view, therefore, the very basis of their identification of the appellant in the Court being one of the member of the naxalite team loses its force. The witnesses have categorically stated that before this incident they had not seen the appellant. I am conscious of the fact that the evidence of the test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence to lend an assurance to the statements of the witnesses about the identification of the accused being the perpetrator of the crime at the earliest opportunity. The dock identification of the accused by the witnesses in the given case can be sufficient to establish the identification of the accused. The dock identification of the accused by the witnesses is substantive piece of evidence. However, in such a case, the Court has to be very careful and cautious. The Court must be satisfied that the witness had an opportunity to see the accused on the spot at the time of the commission of the crime. The Court must also be satisfied that the witness has not identified the accused in the Court, being the perpetrator of the crime, for the sake of supporting the case of the prosecution. The evidence of identification of the accused in such circumstances must be beyond doubt. In my view, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the attending circumstances, as discussed above, are sufficient to conclude that the appellant was not seen by them on the spot. The appellant was not known to the police officers prior to the occurrence of this incident. In the facts and circumstances, the witnesses were supposed to make a concrete statement for identifying the appellant in the Court at the time of their evidence. {Para 11}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal (Apeal) No. 340 of 2022

Decided On: 30.08.2024

Parvati Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.A. Sanap, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/5734/2024.

Print Page

Supreme court: Confession Recorded By Medical Officer When Accused Were Presented By Police Officers Inadmissible As Evidence

The trial Court as well as the High Court, placed extensive reliance on the confessions of the Accused Appellants Mohmedfaruk @ Palak Safibhai Memon and Amin @ Lalo recorded by the Medical Officer, Dr. Arvindbhai(PW-2) while preparing the injury reports of the Accused. {Para 40}

41. We find that these so-called confessions are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that the Accused persons were presented at the hospital by the police officers after having been arrested in the present case. As such, the notings made by the Medical Officer, Dr. Arvindbhai(PW-2) in the injury reports of Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and Amin @ Lalo would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(hereinafter being referred to as 'Evidence Act'). As a consequence, we are not inclined to accept the said admissions of the Accused as incriminating pieces of evidence relevant Under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023 and 112 of 2024

Decided On: 08.08.2024

Allarakha Habib Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0856/2024.

Print Page

To what extent conduct of accused in relevant even if prosecution has failed to prove his discovery statement U/S 27 of Evidence Act?

 Even if we have to discard the evidence of discovery

on the ground that no independent witnesses were present

at the time of discovery, still the fact that the appellant

herein led the police party to his house and handed over the

ice pick used at the time of the assault, would be reflective

of his conduct. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act,

the conduct of an accused is relevant, if such conduct

influences or influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the

accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where he

had concealed the weapon of offence i.e. ice pick, would be

admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the

fact whether the statement made by the appellant convict

contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct

falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act or

not. Even if we hold that the discovery statement made by

the appellant convict referred to above is not admissible

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant

under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. {Para 78}

2023INSC765

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2015

MUKESH SINGH Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 

Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

Dated: AUGUST 24, 2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether accused can refuse to participate in test identification parade on the ground that they were shown to the witnesses in advance?

 Gyan Sudha Misra, J. while disagreeing with H.S.

Bedi, J. took the view that it is not open to accused to refuse

to participate in the TIP. The learned Judge observed in

para 27 as under:-

“27. In my considered view, it was not open to the

accused to refuse to participate in the TI parade nor

was it a correct legal approach for the prosecution to

accept refusal of the accused to participate in the test

identification parade. If the appellant-accused had

reason to do so, specially on the plea that he had

been shown to the eyewitnesses in advance, the

value and admissibility of the evidence of TI parade

could have been assailed by the defence at the stage

of trial in order to demolish the value of the test

identification parade. But merely on account of the

objection of the accused, he could not have been

permitted to decline from participating in the test

identification parade from which adverse inference

can surely be drawn against him at least in order to

corroborate the prosecution case.” {Para 50}

[Emphasis supplied]

 2023INSC765

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2015

MUKESH SINGH Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 

Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

Dated: AUGUST 24, 2023.

Print Page

Whether the court can permit test identification parade of seized property after it was released on Supratnama?

 It has been submitted that briefly the allegations are that the Contractor/consigners-Jai Mata Di Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was carrying the gold, diamond and silver articles and a robbery was conducted. During the course of the investigations, recovery was effected. Pursuant to the recovery been effected an application was moved by Sh. Sunil Kumar, Proprietor of Jai Mata Di Logistics Pvt. Ltd for release of the articles. The State gave its no objections on the basis of which learned ACMM-01 vide order dated 13th September, 2022 ordered for release of the articles subject to certain conditions as contained in order dated 13th September, 2022. {Para 3}

4. On 30th September, 2022, the State moved an application for conducting TIP of the case property. This application was rejected by the learned MM inter alia on the ground that once the articles have been ordered to be released to the person who was in lawful custody of the articles, there is no reason whatsoever for identification of the articles.

11. The judicial TIPs are conducted under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is a settled proposition that the TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only a relevant fact which is taken into the account during the appreciation of the evidence.

12. This Court is of the considered opinion that investigating agency, unless found to have committed some illegality should be given a free hand for the purpose of conducting the investigation. Investigating officers or their supervisory officers are expected to take the best decision for the purpose of ensuring that the guilty persons are brought to the book and justice is dispensed to the complainant.

13. Perusal of the order of the learned MM dated 30th September, 2022 indicates that even learned MM was of the view that the application for TIP should have been moved earlier. This might have been a slip on the part of the IO but for this the right of the investigating officer to get the TIP conducted cannot be taken away.

14. Thus, I consider that the order of the learned MM and learned ASJ denying the right to conduct the TIP is not in accordance with law. Hence, the order dated 30th September, 2022, 21st November, 2022 and 26th November, 2022 are bound to be set aside, however the order dated 13th September, 2022 is to be given effect immediately without any further delay.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 6494/2022 and CM Appl. 25282/2022

Decided On: 02.12.2022

State (NCT of Delhi)  Vs.  Sunil Kumar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4940/2022

Print Page

When court should not rely on identification of accused by victim before court if test identification parade was not conducted?

 It is also pertinent to note that PW2 did not know the Appellant and that she had identified him only as a painter. No test identification was conducted to establish the identity of the Appellant. She had identified him in the court for the first time about two years from the date of the incident. In Kanan v. State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319 : AIR 1979 SC 1127, the Apex Court has observed that:—

“3… It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The Idea of holding T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court….” {Para 15}

16. It is also to be noted that the testimony of PW1 indicates that prior to the incident, she did not know the Appellant either by name or face. She claims that her daughter (PW2) had informed her that the painter who was engaged to paint the room of PW6 had sexually abused her on 11/05/2017.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)

Laxman Govind Varma  Vs State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 2019

Decided on October 26, 2021

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4137

Print Page

Whether colloquial variation in describing the accused render the identification of accused unreliable?

 In the above context, the contention of the

appellant’s counsel that the supplementary statements

identifying the accused by name were not produced

before the Courts below, do not appear to be entirely

correct. The Trial Court records as specifically noted

in the preceding paragraph, clearly reveal that Arun’s

(PW1) statement dated 23.01.2009 identifying the

accused by name, was available before the Sessions

Court. It is also plausible that the accused with the

alias Lala could be referred by the witnesses as

‘Lalya’. The colloquial variation, in our opinion, is

not so far removed so as to render the identification

unreliable, particularly when no other person by such

name is amongst the accused group. Much indeed is in

a name as in this case if we may take the liberty of

disagreeing with one of the most famous lines penned

down by the Bard of Avon, “Whats in a name”.{Para 13}

 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 540/2018

LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE  Vs  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: AUGUST 24, 2021

Print Page

Bombay HC: Precaution which court should take in conduct of test identification Parade

  It is well settled that the evidence of Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence. The object of conducting Test Identification Parade is to enable the witness to identify the suspect who was previously not known to him. The Criminal Manual of this High Court lays down the guidelines and prescribes the procedure in holding the Identification Parade. These guidelines include : (i) identification parade should be held and every precaution must be taken to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification through the witnesses ; (ii) the witnesses should be prevented from seeing the

suspect before he is paraded with the other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect ; (iii) the suspect should be placed among the persons who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance and position in life. {Para 16}

17. The procedure for holding Identification Parade provides, inter alia, that : (i) the Executive Magistrate should first acquaint himself very briefly, with the facts of the case and find out who is to be put in parade for identification and who are the witnesses to be called for identification, (ii) the Executive Magistrate should satisfy himself that the two independent respectable persons arranged for by the police are infact independent and fairly intelligent persons and should acquaint

them briefly with the facts of the case, (iii) the memorandum should include (a) the names, ages, occupations and the full addresses of the two respectable persons, (b) the names and the approximate ages of the persons standing in the parade, mentioning clearly, one below the other, in numerical order, their positions in the parade, (iv) the fact that no person, other than those in the parade and the two respectable persons were allowed to remain in the room and that all police officers and constables were asked to withdraw, (v) After the memorandum is completed, the Executive Magistrate should make an endorsement at the end certifying that identification was conducted by him personally with the help of the two respectable witnesses whose names should be specified in the endorsement and further certify that their signatures have been obtained in what transpired in their presence ; (vi) the memorandum should also have an endorsement of the two respectable persons certifying that they have read the memorandum or that it was

explained to them or that it depicts the correct state of affair as stated in the memorandum and the Executive Magistrate is required to obtain signatures of the two respectable persons with whose help he held the Identification Parade.

19. In the instant case, the evidence of PW4 reveals that the police had called the two independent respectable persons. The evidence of PW4 does not indicate that she had briefed them about the facts of the case. There is also nothing on record to indicate that she had ascertain that the two persons brought by the police were in fact independent persons. As stated earlier, the Test Identification Parade was conducted about a month after the arrest of the Appellant in this crime. PW10 has deposed that Investigating Officer had called them to the Police Station

to identify the suspects arrested in this crime. It was therefore

incumbent upon PW10 to rule out the possibility of the identifying witnesses having an opportunity to see the Appellant prior to the Test Identification Parade. PW4 has admitted in her cross examination that she had not asked the witnesses whether the police had shown them the photographs of the accused. She claims that she had asked the said question when the witnesses were instructed to sit in the closed room. This is implausible in view of the admission of PW4 that prior to commencement of the parade, she had not gone to the room where the witnesses were made to sit. It is thus evident that PW4 had not taken necessary precautions to ensure that the identifying witnesses had no

opportunity to see the Appellant or his photograph before conducting  the TI parade.

20. The evidence of PW4 also does not indicate that the dummies

were of similar age with similar physical appearance, as the person to be identified. The memorandum also does not disclose the names and other details of the persons who were placed in the parade along with the Appellant. PW4 and the two respectable persons have also not made endorsements at the foot of the memorandum of the Test Identification Parade. It is thus evident that the Test Identification Parade is in breach of the guidelines and procedure prescribed in the Criminal Manual. Hence, the identification of this Appellant in the Test Identification Parade has no evidentiary value.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2015

Harqbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju Vs The State of Maharashtra

Print Page