Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh against his conviction for murder and other offences. The incident occurred on 6th March 2006, where an unlawful assembly attacked a video shop, resulting in the death of Kapil and injuries to Ajeesh (PW-2). The appellant was arrested in 2008 and chargesheeted as Accused No.6. The trial court convicted him under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act, which was partly upheld by the High Court. The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that he was identified for the first time in court by PW-1 and PW-2, who did not know him previously, and no test identification parade was held. The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-12, and PW-14. It found that PW-12 and PW-14 did not implicate the appellant. PW-1 and PW-2 stated that only Accused No.1 was known to them, and the other accused, including the appellant, were not known. The court noted that the incident occurred four and a half years before their testimony. Relying on settled law, the court held that identification for the first time in court without a prior test identification parade is not reliable and creates serious doubt. The court also noted that the motive was attributed only to Accused No.1. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Test Identification Parade - Identification for the first time in court without holding a Test Identification Parade creates serious doubt about the credibility of the identification, especially when the witnesses did not know the accused previously and the incident occurred four and a half years prior to their testimony. Held that such identification is not reliable and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-14) B) Evidence Law - Injured Eyewitness - Evidentiary Value - While the testimony of an injured eyewitness carries greater weight, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction if the identification is doubtful and not corroborated by other evidence. Held that the conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an injured witness's identification when the accused was not known to the witness and no test identification parade was conducted. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant based on identification for the first time in court by witnesses who did not know him previously, without a prior test identification parade, is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Identification for first time in court without test identification parade
- Injured eyewitness testimony
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Benefit of doubt
