Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 77/2012, convicting accused nos. 3 and 4 (appellants) under Sections 143, 148, 120B, 302, 307 read with Sections 149 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The same judgment acquitted the appellants of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act, and acquitted accused nos. 1 and 2 of all charges. The appeal was restricted to the conviction and sentence. Background: The prosecution case was that on 01.12.2011 at about 7:30 a.m., API Raut (PW11) received a phone call from Fagnu Kallo (A1) that Naxalites had put up posters and banners at Mispiri Dhamditola. Five police constables, including PW1 to PW4 and deceased Manoj Binzade, were deputed to remove the posters. While returning, they were confronted by a mob of about 60/70 Naxalites who fired at them. The constables fled; Binzade was killed. FIR was lodged by PW1 against A1 and 70/80 unidentified Naxalites. Later, involvement of accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 was revealed. The appellants were arrested on 02.12.2012, almost a year after the incident. Charges were framed on 09.08.2016. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The appellants denied guilt and claimed false implication. Legal Issues: The core issue was whether the conviction could be sustained on the identification evidence of PW1 to PW4, given the alleged defects in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the delay in holding it. Appellants contended the TIP was conducted after almost a year from the incident and five weeks after arrest, contrary to Criminal Manual guidelines, and that the witnesses had only a fleeting vision of the assailants from over 50 meters while running away. They argued the dock identification after five years was unreliable. Arguments: Appellants' counsel relied on Subhas & Shiv Shankar v. State of U.P., Musheer Khan v. State of M.P., and Narayan Kanu Datavale v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the TIP was defective and identification evidence was insufficient. The State argued the TIP was not mandatory, dock identification was substantive evidence, the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused, and non-compliance with Criminal Manual guidelines did not vitiate the parade. The State relied on Ms. S v. Sunil Kumar, Ashok Debbarama v. State of Tripura, Lawrence Dias v. State, and Ajaykumar Sunilkumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra. Court's Analysis: The court, as per the provided excerpt, recorded the submissions of both sides. It noted the arguments regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses, the delay in TIP, and the nature of identification. However, the final analysis and decision are not contained in the provided text. Decision: Not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Identification Evidence - Test Identification Parade and Dock Identification - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 143,148,120B,302,307,149,395; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - Appeal challenged conviction on ground that Test Identification Parade was defective, delayed, and in violation of Criminal Manual guidelines; State contended that parade was not mandatory and dock identification was substantive evidence; court considered arguments on reliability of identification but no final decision available in provided excerpt (Paras 7-13). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Credibility of Eyewitnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants argued that PW1 to PW4 had only fleeting vision, were on run, and identification from over 50 meters was improbable; State argued witnesses had sufficient opportunity and no reason to implicate falsely; court weighed these contentions (Paras 7-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction of appellants under Sections 143, 148, 120B, 302, 307, 149, 395 IPC can be sustained based on identification evidence of PW1 to PW4 in absence of reliable Test Identification Parade
Law Points
- Test Identification Parade is not mandatory
- identification in Court is substantive evidence
- non-compliance with Criminal Manual guidelines does not vitiate parade
- identification evidence requires credibility and reliability
- TIP conducted after delay and in violation of guidelines may be unreliable
