Recently, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case where witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused or where other compelling evidence establishes their identity. The Court upheld the conviction of two persons for kidnapping an eight-year-old child for ransom. The Court emphasized that reliable in-court identification, when supported by surrounding circumstances and recoveries made during the investigation, can safely form the basis of a conviction.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the conviction of two accused under Sections 364A and 368 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act in one case, for allegedly kidnapping a minor child at gunpoint and demanding ransom from his family. The prosecution claimed that the child was forcibly abducted while on his way to school and was later recovered during the investigation, along with other incriminating material linked to the accused. After the Trial Court convicted the accused and the High Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence, they approached the Apex Court, contending, among other things, that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of kidnapping for ransom and that their identification in court, without a prior Test Identification Parade, could not form the basis of a conviction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellants argued that the prosecution's case was based largely on the testimony of related witnesses and failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC. The counsel contended that there was no reliable evidence of any threat to the victim or a genuine ransom demand, particularly in the absence of call records or other supporting electronic evidence. The Appellants further challenged their identification, submitting that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and that their first-time identification in court, years after the incident, lacked evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court decisions to argue that the conviction could not be sustained without proper proof of ransom demand and identification.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State argued that the prosecution had successfully established its case through the consistent testimonies of the victim, his sisters, and other witnesses. The counsel contended that the ransom demand was sufficiently proved through oral evidence and that the absence of electronic records could not undermine otherwise credible testimony. On identification, the State submitted that a Test Identification Parade is only corroborative and not indispensable where witnesses had an adequate opportunity to observe the accused. The State also relied on the recovery of the victim and the weapon at the instance of the appellants to independently corroborate their involvement in the offence.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, "Where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held."
The Court observed that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not by itself fatal to the prosecution's case, as a TIP is only a corroborative tool and not substantive evidence. The Bench held that where witnesses have had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the commission of the offence, their in-court identification can be relied upon even without a prior TIP. In the present case, the kidnapping occurred in broad daylight, and the victim's sisters had a clear and unobstructed opportunity to observe the assailants during the confrontation, which involved physical resistance, verbal exchanges, and the use of a firearm. The Court therefore found their dock identification to be reliable and trustworthy.
The Court further held that the prosecution's case was strongly supported by the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosures of the accused. The Bench noted that one appellant's disclosure led to the recovery of the kidnapped child, while the other's disclosure resulted in the recovery of the firearm used in the crime. These recoveries constituted significant incriminating circumstances under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and independently corroborated the prosecution's version. The Court also found that the demand for ransom stood established through consistent oral testimony of the victim's family members and the Investigating Officer, observing that the absence of electronic evidence, such as call records, could not outweigh otherwise credible and unimpeached evidence.
The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 364A of the IPC were fully satisfied. It observed that the use of a firearm to stop children and forcibly abduct a minor inherently amounted to a threat of death or serious harm, thereby meeting the statutory requirement. The Bench also reiterated that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their relationship with the victim, particularly when their evidence remains consistent and withstands cross-examination. Rejecting the plea of false implication, the Court found that the accused had failed to disclose any specific motive or prior enmity that could explain such a serious allegation, rendering the defence vague and unsubstantiated.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 364A and 368 of the IPC, along with the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act against one of the accused. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Allahabad High Court was sustained.
Picture Source :