The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that mere delay in holding a test identification parade can’t be sufficient to discard the TIP as well as the evidence of the ocular witnesses. The TIP is in the nature of the corroborative piece of evidence and not the substantive evidence.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant along with his mother went to the bank and withdrew money of Rs. 60,000/- cash, kept the same in a plastic bag, and proceeded towards his house on his motorcycle. Thereafter, two miscreants riding on a red color pulsar motorcycle snatched the plastic bag from his mother’s hand and tried to escape. The informant chased them for a while, however, they managed to flee away. Furthermore, the case was registered under registered for the offense under Section 392 I.P.C. against two unknown miscreants. The trial court convicted the accused persons and the appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that there exists no concrete evidence which shows the involvement in the commission of the crime. It was furthermore contended that the TIP was conducted after a month after the arrest of the Petitioner. Also, it was mentioned by the informants that the miscreants had a black complexion, however, the same was not mentioned in the TIP Chart.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that a mere delay in holding the TIP can’t be a ground to reject a TIP. It was furthermore contended that TIP can only be accepted as a corroborative piece of evidence and is used to strengthen the existing substantial evidence of the witness in court. Also, it has to be explained by the Petitioner how they got possession of the incriminating articles.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a one-month delay in performing the test identification parade, which is the issue in the instant case, cannot be considered an excessive delay that would lead to the rejection of both the TIP and the ocular testimony. Instead of being substantial evidence, the TIP is more of a corroborated piece of evidence. The petitioner's involvement in the claimed offense has been established, even in the absence of the TIP.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case title: Michel Vijay V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.629 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate Md. Faiz, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
