Case Note & Summary
In 1991, seven armed terrorists allegedly murdered Jasbir Singh alias Bhure in village Shanurki, Punjab. The victim's father, Gurjant Singh, lodged an FIR stating that unknown men entered his house, demanded money and a licensed rifle, and then forcibly took Jasbir Singh away and shot him within minutes. Since the assailants were not known to any family member, only descriptions were given. During investigation, based on an alleged confession before Chhota Singh, the village sarpanch, and recovery of weapons and a wallet containing a photograph of one accused, five persons were arrested and charged under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The Designated Court, Sangrur convicted all five accused, accepting the first-time identification of the accused by eyewitnesses Gurjant Singh and Ram Singh, the extra-judicial confession before Chhota Singh, and the wallet photograph evidence. The accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms, with connected Arms Act cases also resulting in convictions. The appellants challenged the convictions before the Supreme Court, arguing that non-holding of a test identification parade made court identification unsafe, especially since the eyewitnesses admitted they did not know the terrorists; that the wallet photograph was weak evidence; and that the extra-judicial confession was improbable because no reason was given for the accused reposing confidence in Chhota Singh. The State supported the conviction. The Supreme Court found merit in each contention. It noted that despite arrests, no test identification parade was held, and first-time court identification by witnesses who did not know the accused could not be accepted with certainty. The Court held that the wallet photograph was a weak piece of evidence insufficient to connect the accused to the crime. Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the Court observed that Chhota Singh gave no reason why the accused would confess to him, making the confession highly improbable and unsafe. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences passed by the Designated Court were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Those in jail were directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Non-holding of test identification parade and first-time court identification unreliable - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section not specified - The accused were arrested but no test identification parade was held, and eyewitnesses identified them for the first time in court. The Court held that such identification cannot be accepted with certainty and cannot connect the accused to the crime. Held that conviction based on such identification is unsustainable. (Para 13) B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Photograph found in wallet as weak identity evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section not specified - The prosecution relied on recovery of a wallet from the kitchen garden containing a photograph of one accused to establish identity. The Court found this evidence weak and insufficient to connect the accused to the crime. Held that reliance on such evidence does not sustain conviction. (Para 14) C) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Credibility and probability of confession before village sarpanch - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section not specified - The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before the sarpanch. The Court found it highly improbable that the accused would go to the witness and confess guilt without any reason for reposing confidence, and the witness gave no reason for such trust. Held that it was unsafe to convict any of the appellants based on this confession. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and Sections 3/4 TADA could be sustained based on first-time court identification without a test identification parade, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and weak circumstantial evidence such as a recovered wallet with a photograph.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals allowed; convictions and sentences quashed and set aside; appellants acquitted; all appellants in jail to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be based on first-time court identification without a test identification parade
- Extra-judicial confession must be credible and plausible
- Weak circumstantial evidence such as a photograph in a wallet does not establish identity beyond reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt to accused when prosecution evidence is inadequate
