The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the identification of the accused in the test identification parade by the eyewitness, though not conclusive might in a given case, give credence to the identification of the accused before the Court by the eyewitness. However, the failure to conduct a test identification parade is not always fatal. It all depends on the facts of each case.
It was noted that in the present case, the witness was called to the office of the Superintendent of Police, and the appellant was shown to him in the office. Therefore, the identification of the Appellant was not free of any doubts.
Brief Facts:
The deceased and the Appellant after consuming liquor engaged in an altercation and the deceased was injured on the head, resulting in his death.
The Appellant made a memorandum of disclosure due to which dead body could be exhumed.
The two most important circumstances of the Prosecution’s theory were last seen together and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the Appellant.
The Appellant was convicted of the offences, hence the present appeal.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the one witness who could prove last seen theory was not examined by the Prosecution and no reason was given for the same.
Further, test identification parade was not conducted.
The Bench opined that The identification of the accused in the test identification parade by the eyewitness, though not conclusive might in a given case, give credence to the identification of the accused before the Court by the eyewitness. However, the failure to conduct a test identification parade is not always fatal. It all depends on the facts of each case.
It was noted that in the present case, the witness was called to the office of the Superintendent of Police, and the appellant was shown to him in the office. Therefore, the identification of the Appellant was not free of any doubts.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the abovesaid analysis, the Top Court held that the Prosecution failed to prove the case and accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Mohd. Rijwan v. State of Haryana
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2350 Of 2011
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 792 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rukhsana Choudhury
Advocate For Respondent: Adv. Monika Gusain
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
