Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment dated 03/09/2015 of the Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 in MCOC Special Case No. 05/2011 @ 12/2012. The appellant was accused no.1 and was convicted under Sections 120-B, 307, 450, 506(ii) read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and five years respectively, with fines and default sentences, all to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case was that on 30/06/2010, unknown persons entered the office of Sagar Builders, where the first informant PW10 Sumit Sonawane was employed as Sales Executive, and fired at him and pointed the firearm at PW11 Hasan Gokulsab Chaudhari, Site Supervisor for Codcon Builders. The appellant was arrested later in a different crime and taken into custody in the present case on 06/01/2011. A Test Identification Parade was conducted on 05/02/2011, in which PW10 and PW11 allegedly identified the appellant. The trial court acquitted the co-accused and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 452, 387 IPC and the MCOC Act, but convicted him on the other charges. In appeal, the appellant raised two main contentions: first, that there was inordinate delay in conducting the TI parade; and second, that the TI parade was conducted in total breach of the Criminal Manual guidelines. The State argued that the delay was not inordinate because the appellant was taken into custody in the present crime only on 06/01/2011. The High Court referred to Pramod Mandal v/s. State of Bihar and Raja v/s. State by the Inspector of Police, which held that there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which a test identification parade must be held, and that such matters must be left to courts of fact. The High Court noted that the investigating officer was not cross-examined on delay and no motive was imputed to the prosecution for delay, so delay was not per se fatal. The High Court also set out the Criminal Manual guidelines and procedure for identification parades, including precautions to exclude unfairness, preventing witnesses from seeing the suspect beforehand, placing the suspect among similar persons, and requirements for independent respectable witnesses and memorandum endorsements. The Court reiterated that identification parade evidence is not substantive evidence and its object is to enable identification of a suspect previously unknown. The provided excerpt of the judgment did not include the final operative order, so the ultimate decision on the appeal is not stated in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Test Identification Parade - Delay in Holding TI Parade - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellant argued that inordinate delay in conducting the TI parade vitiated identification. The court, relying on Pramod Mandal v/s. State of Bihar and Raja v/s. State by the Inspector of Police, held that no invariable rule prescribes a period within which a test identification parade must be held and that such matters must be left to courts of fact. The investigating officer was not cross-examined on the delay and no motive was imputed to the prosecution, hence the delay was not per se fatal to the prosecution case (Paras 13-14). B) Criminal Law - Test Identification Parade - Compliance with Criminal Manual Guidelines - Criminal Manual of Bombay High Court - The appellant contended that the TI parade was conducted in total breach of the Criminal Manual guidelines. The court set out the guidelines and procedure, including precautions to exclude unfairness or risk of erroneous identification, preventing witnesses from seeing the suspect beforehand, placing the suspect among similar persons, and requirements for independent respectable witnesses and memorandum endorsements. The court reiterated that evidence of Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence and that its object is to enable a witness to identify a suspect previously unknown (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether inordinate delay in conducting Test Identification Parade vitiated identification evidence; whether Test Identification Parade conducted in breach of Criminal Manual guidelines rendered identification unreliable; whether conviction under Sections 120-B, 307, 450, 506(ii) IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act sustainable
Law Points
- Test identification parade is not substantive evidence
- no hard and fast rule for period of TI parade
- delay not per se fatal
- matters left to courts of fact
- Criminal Manual guidelines must be followed
- identification parade must exclude unfairness or risk of erroneous identification
- witnesses should not see suspect before parade
- suspect to be placed among similar persons
