The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder, holding that conviction based solely on identification parades was unsustainable due to procedural flaws, lack of adequate safeguards, and absence of corroborative evidence regarding their specific roles.
Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted in this Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
564
A
BUDHSEN
v.
STATE OF U.P.
May 6, 1970
[A. N. RAY AND I. D .. DuA, JJ.]
ll
Evidence Act (1 oif 1872),s.9-Idemification parades-Manner of holding-Weight to be atlac/ied-Constitutlon of India 1950 Art. 136-Evidentiary value attached to identificnUon parades:._&ro~eous- lnterference by Supreme Court.
The two appellants B and N, along with two others who were acquitted by the High Court, were charged with the offence of murder by shooting the deceased, committed on September 12, 1967. The evidence against them mainly consisted of six witnesses who had identified them at test parades. The High Court rejected the eyidence of three of them and relied upon the evidence of the remaining three. Two of them claimed to be present at ~he time of the occurrence and the third came on the scene after hearing pistol shots and the alarm raised b·; others. The appellants were strangers to oll the witnesses.
One of the eye witnesses (P.W. I) gave the first information to the police, but there was no description of the assailants in it. The P.S.l. recording the report also did• not question the informant for the purpose of securing more information about the description of the assailants in order to be able to take measures to discover and arrest them. P.W. I identified the appellants at two identification parades conducted by a Magistrate. The identification parade in respect of N was held on October 21, 1967 and in respect of B on October 28, 1967. In the form relating to the identification parade, there is a footnote stating that it is very useful to note whether the witness knew the name of the person he had come to identify or only cfoscribed him and that the witness should not be asked in a 2eneral way to identify whomsoever he knew. The Ma2istrate ave evidence that .he had asked witnesses who had come to identify the accused (named) as to what he had seen the accused doing and recorded whatever the witness told him. Whatever the first witness had told him was reco"rded word for word and since the other witness had repeated the same thin he nciled down against their names the words as above. The identification memorandum as ·reeard.s the other accused. prepared by the Magistrate at the time of his identification parade, was similar. There was also unexplained error as to the date on which apnelJant B was admitted into the jail. In both idcn@cation memos there were no remarks by the Magistrate i11 1·espect of the steps taken by the jail authoritis to ensure proper conduct of_ proceedings. 'lhc eye witnesses also d"id not specify in C'Clurt the accused '"'ho hd actually fired the pistol.
The second cyl.! ,,·itncss -ad1nitlc<l in cross-exan1inatio11 1hat he had gone to the j3il for identification on tl1ree occasions and that on two occasions he had identified the accused but on the th;rd occasion he did not identifv any. He was unable to state as to which accused he identified in the first and which in the second parade.
c
D
E
F
G
H
The third witness deposed tho! he had identified the.accusecl who had a jlrola in his hand (he was alleged hji\ hy the three witnesses to have
BUDHSEN v. U.P, STATE' (Dua, /.)
565
A taken a pistol from the Jhola) at one identification parade and the other accused at the second identification parade.
Appellant 'N' had stated during the identification parade that he had been shown to the witnesses and had also been pbotc-graphed.
On the question whether the conviction could be sustained on this evidence :- -
B HELD : Facts which establish the identity of an accused per.on are relevant under s. 9 of the E~dencc Act. The substantive evidence of iden· tification is the statement of the witness in court. But the evidence of identification at the trial for the first time is from its very nature weak. A prior test identification, therefore serves to corroborate the evidence in court. The purpose of identfication parades which belong to the investigation stage is to enable the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who are not pre\iously known to them, and thereby to c satisfy the investigating officers of their bo11a fidts by pointing out the persons they recognise as having taken part in the crime. These parades thus furnish evidence which corroborates the testimony of the identifying witnesses in court. These parades do not constitute substantive evidence. Keeping in view the purpose of identification parades, the precautions to eliminate suspicion of unfairness and to reduce chances of testimonial error. They must take intelligent interest in the proc,edings bearing in D mind two considerations : (i) that the life and liberty of an accused may depend on their vigilance and caution, and (ii) that justice should be done in the identification. Generally, the Magistrates must make a note of every objection raised bv an accused at the time of identification and the steps taken by them to ensure fairness to the accused, so that the court which is to iudge the value of the identificatioo evidence m•Y take them into consideration in the appreciation of that C\idence. The persons required to identify an accused should have had no ooportunity of seeing E him after the commissioo of crime and before identification and secondly that thev should make no mistakes or the mistakes made are neg!; gible. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed uP with the accused should be rea•onably larn and their bearin11 and general appearance not glaringly dis:Jmilar. [570 H; 571 A·H; 572 A.CJ
In the present case the evidence shows !,hat the Magistrate paid scant F attention to the direction in the identiftcation memos. The memo• do not 1how that the parades were held bv the Magistrate with the dell'•• of vigilance, care and anxiety their inmortance dema"ded, and they were filled up in a very cuual manner. They could only have a somewhat fi....tin11 alimose of the usailants. The prosecution has at,,, nm exolai· ned whv the second eve witness had to JI<> to the jail fot identification a third time. The two eve witnesses did not state in evidence what oarticular part the two appellants played in the occurrence. The third witG ness who come on the scene o" hearina tlte alarm could only have had a still more fieeting glimpse. t572 F-0; 573 D-E; 577 C-DJ
The statement• of the three witne-aes were also otherwlat unimn•ea· sive and couoled with the fact that ther- was a po•slhi•ii.• of their l1nvin11 seen at least one of t'1e accu•ed (a01'Clla"t B) outside Jail 11ates a week beforo. the identlflcatio" oarades were lleld, the test identlflcatio,, oarades cnnM nil! be cnri•ldered tn .'1rovide ••fe and tru.,wn.,liv evidence on H which the appellants' conviction could be sustained. (577 El
(2\ The •"tire case d•aended on identiflcation nf tlie aooella"ts and the identification was founded solely on test ident111catlon parades. The
566
[1971] 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS
Hi11h Court did not correctly appreciate the evidentiary value of the para- de:.; and proceed·d on the erroneous assumption that it is substantive evidenc and that on the basis of that evidence alone the conviction could be sustained. The High Court also ignored important evidence on the rec o d in rei?;ard to the manner in \Vhich test identification- parades were held and the connected circumstances suggesting that li1ev were held more or less in a mechanical way \vithout the necessary precauti(lns being taken to cli1niriatc unfairness. This is an erroneous v.,ay of dealing with test identification parades and since it has caused failurl'! vf iustice. this Court is justified in interfering under Art. 136 [577 H; 580 C-GJ
A
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 199 and 200 of 1969. ·
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2623 of 1968 and Referred No. 160 of 1968.
c
K. Baldev Mehta, for the appellant (in Cr.A. No. 199 of 1969).
G, I. Sanghi, P .. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathui' and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant (\n Cr. A. No. 200 of 1969).
()
0. P. Rana, for the respondent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Dua, J.-These two appeals by special leave arise out of a joint trial of the present appellants and Jagdish and Sugriv. All the four accused were convicted by the trial court; the present appellants were sen:enced to death under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisonment under s. 302 read with s. 109, {.P.C. They challenged. their conviction by separate appeals to the Allahabad High Court. By means of a common judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants (Cr!. A. No. 2623 of 1968) and allowed that of their co-accused J agdish and Sugriv (Cr!. A. No. 2648 of 1968). The sentence of death imposed on the present appellants under s. 302, 1.P,C. for the murder of Lala Hazarilal was confirmed.
F
G
According to the prosecution story Jagdish and- Sugriv related 19 each other as cousins belonged to village Bidrika. They used . to harass the poor inhabitants of that village whereas deceased Hazarilal used to espouse their cause. As a result, there was not much love lost between Jagdish and Sugriv on the one side and Hazarilal on the other. Some years ago J agdish, along with some others, was prosecuted for forging accounts of a Co-operative Society and was found guilty· by the Assistant Sessions Judge, though released on probation under the. U.P. First Offenders' Pro-
H
BUDHSEN V. U.P. STATE (Dua, /.)
567
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
at the house of Jagdish. S. K. Yadav, Sub-Inspector ~th 'whom the F.1.R. was lodged reached the scene of the occurrence at 6.15 p.m. the same day. He found one discharged cartridge and two wads at the place of the occurrence. He recorded· the statements of some witnesses, including Ghaziuddin 011 the following day. Further investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector Harcharan Singh (P. W. 21). Jagdish and Sugriv on whom suspicion had fallen were not traceable with the result that warrants for their arrest were made over to Sub-Inspector Yadav. Proceedings under . ss. 87 and 88, Cr. P.C. were started against them but soon thereafter they surrendered themselves in court on September 29, 1967. During investigation the. Investigating Officer learnt about the complicity of the present appellants and Naubat was arrested on October 9, 1967. Budhsen, however, was arrester! in connection with some other case on October 14, 1967 by Sasni police. Magistrate Pratap Singh (P.W. 20) held identification parade of Naubat on October 21, 1967 and of Budhsen on October 28, 1967.
The trial court came to the conclusion that Jagdish and Sugriv had abetted the murder of Hazarilal and appellants Naubat and Budhsen had committed the murder. Naubat and Budhsen were, therefore,. sentenced to death bod Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisomnent.
On appeal the J{igh Court re-summoned Lakhan Singh, Head Coostabie of Thana Sasni, District Aligarh, who had already appeared at the trial as P.W. 14 and recorded his additional statement. Lakhan Singh had taken Budhsen in custody at police station Sasni. His statement as P.W. 14 left some doubts in the minds of th.: Judges of the High Court to clear which it was considered necessary to examine him again in the High Court/ After considering the entire evidence the High Court acquitted Jagdish and Sugriv but maintained the conviction and sentence of Budhsen and Naubat,, appellants. The statement made by Ghaziuddin; (P. W. 2) was not believed by the High Court and his version was described as unnatural and improbable. That court also ignored the evidence of Chaodrapal (P.W. · 5), Girendra Pal Singh (P.W. · 7) and Lakhanpal (P.W. 8) on the ground of their being either irrelevant or unreliable. The existence of inimical relations . between J agdish and Sugriv on one side and Hazarilal on the other was not considered to be a sufficiently strong circumstance against Jagdish and Sugriv so as to hold them guiltv of insti2ating Hazarilal's. murder. As against Naubat and Budhsen, appellants in the opinion of the High Court primary evidence consists of their identification by some of the witnesses. The court took into consideration the identification parade for Naubat held by Ma~istrate Pratap Singh on October 21, 1967 and that for Budhsen on October 28, 1967. It was princioally the evidence of identification on which reliance was placed for holding the present appel-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BUDHSEN v. U.P. STATE (Dua, J.)
569
Since according to the High Court the primary evidence against the appellants is that of their identification by the wit· nesses the crucial point seems to us to be the admissibility and value of the evdence regarding the identification of the appellants. We accordingly consider it necessary, on the facts and circumstances of this case, to examine that evidence. The High Court, H as already observed by us, has ignored the evidence of Chandrapal (P.W. S) Girendrapal (P.W. 7) and Lekhraj (P.W. 8) as either irrelevant or unreliable. The identification or the appellants JS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
thus confined to the testimony of Inderjit (P.W. 1), Kanwar Sen (P.W. 3) and Ranchor (P.W. 4). Turning first to the evidence of lnderjit it is important to bear in mind that he claims to be present at the time of the alleged occurrence along with Kanwar Sen. He also lodged the first information report at 2.35 p.m. on the day of the occurrence. In ·the report, this is what ·p, W. 1 stated in regard to the identification of the alleged assailants and the respective parts played by them in the commission of the offence :
"Today at about 10 O'clock in the day I and my brother Hazari Lal and his partner (Sajhi) Kumar Sen son of Chidda J atav of my village were present at the Gher, and it was raining a little, that four persons came to the Gher and out of them, one man sat on the. cot near my brother and two persons caught hold of me and Kumar Sen and the fourth man having taken out the Katta (pistol) from inside the Jhola which he was carrying in his hand, fired shot at my brother Hazari Lal. My brother jumped and fell down the cot, and he fired another shot at my brother, who had fallen down which hit Hazarilal at his chest as a result whereof he died. We both raised alarm. . On hearing our alarm Imam Khan son of Lal Khan, Ranchor Jatav and Ram Singh tailor of my village also came up and then the accused persons having come out and ran away. These persons have also seen the four accused persons while coming out of the gher and running away. Jagdish and Sugriv having called, these four Badmashes have got committed the murder of my brother. We all ca11 recognise these Badmashes on being confronted."
This description of the assailants could hardly provide the investigating authorities with any firm starting point from which they could proceed to take the necessary measures for the discovery and arrest of the alleged offenders as required bys. 157, Cr. p.C. It is unfortunate that the Sub-Inspector S. K. Yadav, (P.W. 19) did not. care to get more information about the description of the alleged assailants by questioning the informant. Of course, Jagdish and Sugriv were mentioned in the l'.I.R. as the persons who had employed the four assailants for murdering the deceased but having been acquitted they do not concern us. Now, facts which establish the idP-ntity of an accused person are relevant under s. 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. The evidence ·of mere identification of the accused nerson at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The evidence in order to carry conviction
A
B
c
D
E
F
c;
II
BUDHSEN v. U.P. STATE (Dua, J.)
571
'[1971] 1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS '
572
before identification and secondly that no mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should al~o be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed up with the accused should be reasonably large and their bearing and general appearance not glaringly dissimilar. The evidence as to identification deserves, therefore, to be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny by the Court. Shri Pratap Singh, Magistrate, who conducted the identificatiou, has appeared at the trial as P.W. 20. The indentification memo in respect of Naubat, appellant, is Ex. Ka 20 dated October 21, 1967 and in respect of Budhsen is Ex. Ka 21, dated October 28, 1967.
In Ex. Ka 20 we find a note that Naubat had stated that he had been shown to tbe witnesses and had also been photographed. Column 7 of the memo requires to be inserted therein the name or description of the person the witness came to identify and this is to be recorded in the words of the witness. In Ex. Ka 20, Inderjit said :
"I saw the accused while committing the murder. I did not kno•v. him before."
As against the other five witnesses namely Kanwar Sen, Gh:u.iuddin, Imam Baksh, Chandrapal and Ranchor we only find the word "Do". In this connection the note at the foot of the printed form containing the following direction seems to us to be' of some importance :
"N.B.-It is very useful to note whether the witness knew the name of the person he had come to identify or he only described him in some such way as the man who was standing at the door at the time of the dacoity. The witness is not to be asked in a general way, identify whomsoever you know."
A
B
c
D
E
F
It is obvious that scant attention was paid to the letter and spirit of this note. Shri Pratap Singh (P.W. 20) when cross-examined on behalf of Naubat said :"
"I asked the witnesses who had come to identify accused Naubat as to what they had seen Naubat doing. Whatever they told me was recorded by me in col. 7 of the memo. Whatever the first witness Inderjit told was recorded word for word by me and since the other wit· nesses repeated the same thing I noted down the word 'as above' (uparyukt)",
The remarks of the Magistrate were also required against the. enquiry on point no. 2 at the bottom of the first sheet of Ex. Ka 20 which relates to the step taken by t.he jail authorities to ensore the
G
H
B\JDHSEN v. \J.P. STATE (Dua, J.)
573
"I came to identify the person who committed the murder of my brother"
Against the name of Imam Baksh we find the following entry :
"Came to identify the person who committed the murder".
Inderjit (P.W. 1) brother of Hazari Lal, deceased, deposed at the trial that on September 12, 1967 at 10 a.m. he, Kanwar Sen and Razarilal were sitting in the Gher, about 50 paces towards H the east of the village abadi. Hazarilal was sitti.ng on.a cot and Kanwar Sen and the witness were sitling on a heap of fodder nearby in the Duari because that was the onlv place affording shelter against rain. The cot on which Hazarilal was sitting was
[1971] 1 s.c.R.
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
in the middle of the Duari. What the witness next stated may now be reproduced in his own words : '
"Four unknown persons entered the Duari from outside. One of them sat down by the headside of my brother and another proceeded towards the charpoy of my brother. Of the remaining two, one caught hold of me, while the other caught hold of Kunwar Sen. Kunwar Sen and I immediately raised an alarm. The person, who proceeded towards the charpoy of my brother, took out a country made pistol from the bag and shot at my brother. It was he who was holding the bag in his hand. The shot hit my brother and he jumped from the charpoy and fell down. The person who was sitting by the headside of my brother pressed my brother's legs with his legs. The person, armed with the pistol, again loaded the pistol and shot at my brother's chest. My brother died immediately."
On hearing my shouts and the sound of pistol firing Ram Singh, Imam Khan and Ranchor arrived. The Badmashes escaped through the Duari and ran away towards the east."
It is noteworthy that this witness has not specifically stated that Naubat, appellant, had fired the pistol shot. It is only by reference to the person holding a bag from which the pistol was taken out that it is sought to be implied that Naubat had fired the shot. In court Naubat was not specifically identified as the person firing the shot or even as a person holci;n'! th• h0 ". T"• w;'n•<0 ""' olso not stated as to what part the other appellant p1 ayed in the occurrence. A little lower down the witness proceeds :
"I never saw before the four persons who had come to my brother's gher on the· day of occurrence. I had come to the District Jail, Aligarh to identify them. (The witness, having touched the accused Naubat and Budhsen, stated) I identified them in jail. I saw them for the first time on the day of occurrence and thereafter I saw them in jail at the time of identification. I did not sec them afll}'Where in the intervening period.
The question naturally arises if on this state of his testimony the identification made by Inderjit can be held to be a reliable piece of evidence on which the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. In evaluating his testimony we may appropriately consider how far his description of the actual occurrence inspires confidence. We are asked to believe that one of the four assailants sat down near t~ head of Hazarilal and pressed the legs of the latter with
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BUDHSEN v. U.P. STATE (Dua, J.)
575
'
[1971 J 1 S.C.R.
5 7 6r.
SUPREME COURT REPOR,TS
A
These two witnesses claimed to have seen the actual occurrence which took three or four minutes. Two assailants held these two witnesses and one sat on the cot of the deceased and pressed the legs of the deceased with his own legs and the fourth one fired two shots having re-loaded the pistol after the first shot. Their glimpses of the assailants would of course re somewhat fleeting but the different parts played by the four assailants would certainly have left on their minds a fairly firm impression as to what part the two appellants had played in that sordid drama, The power to identify undoubtedly varies according to the power of observation and memory of the identifier and an observation may be based upon small minutiae which a witness, especially a rustic, uneducated villager may not be able to describe or explain. In this case we find that P.W. 4 Ranchor does not know the difference between a minute and a second. An illiterate villager may also at times be found to be more observant than an educated man and his identification in a given case may impress the court without the witness being able to formulate his reasons for the identification. But on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case one would expect these two witnesses to state what particular part these two apoellants played in the course of the occurrence. Without some clear indication to that effect it would be difficult for a judicial mind to rely for conviction on the general as>ertion of these witnesses that the appellants were among the assailants who murdered the deceased. Ranchor (P.W. 4) gave his version as follows:
"It happened 13! months ago. It was 10 a.m. I had gone to the shop of Sannu Lal Patwari to make purchases. Ram Singh, Darzi, was present at that shop along with me. I heard an alarm from the eastern side in which direction Iav the Nohra of Hazarilal. I heard the sound of a fire. Ram Singh and I rushed towards the Nohra. When both of us were at a distance of 15 oaces from the Nohra, I heard the sound of another fire. I saw four unlmown badmashes cominir out of the Noh•a of HazarilaJ. They ran away towards the east. There badmashes were emotv handed and one of the badmashes had a Katta -in his right hand and a red jhola in his left hand. I went to the Nohra and saw that Hazarilal was lving dead and Jnderjit and Kanwar Sen were present there. Imam Khan also reached the Nohra of Hazarilal after me.
I had gone to the District Jail in order to identify the badmashes (Having touched the accused Naubat and Budhen. th witness stated) I identified them in the District Jail. At first I saw them runnimr aw"v from the Nohra. Thereafter, I identified tl!wr in the District Jail.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BUDHSEN V. U.P. STATE (Dua,!.)
577
A I never saw them il the intervening per t. (Having touched Naubat, ac, 1sed, the witness state1..,. He had a Katta in his right ha1,.1 and a jhola in his left hand."
578
[1971] 1 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
in grave or substantial injustice. In Tej Narain v. The State of U.P. (') this Court, after exauinin,; its previous decisions in which this Court had not accepted concurrent findings or had re-examined - the evidence for itself, said :
"The above cases show that this Court has not accepted concurrent findings of fact if there is no evidence for the finding or if there has been an omission to notice material points while appreciating evidence or to bear in mind relevant considerations which swing the balance in favour of the accused. It has also on occasions reexamined the evidence in view of the fact that the case against the accused was based on circumstantial evidence and it was of an extraordinarv nature. In the case before us, as we will show presently· the High Court appears to have completely ov_erlooked the variation in certain important aspects by P.W. 3, while deposing at the trial from what he had stated earlier and consequently the High Court could not apply its mind to their significance. In view of this infirmity in the judgment and other considerations which will be pointed out later we are satisfied that this is one of the exceptional cases in which we should undertake the examination of the entire evidence and appraise it."
B
c
D
In that case the follo~ng observations of Hidayatullah J., (as the present Chief Justice then was) from the judgment in Anant Chintaman Labu v. The State of Bombay(") were reproduced with approval:
E
"Ordinarily, it is not the practice of this Court to reexamine the findings of fact reached by the High Court particularly in a case where there is concurrence of opinion be tweer. the two Courts below. But the case against the appellant is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct evidence that he administered a poison, and no poison has, in fact, been detected by the doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination, or by the Chemical Analyser. The inference of guilt ·having been drawn on an examination of a mass of evidence during which subsidiary findings were given by the two Courts below, we have felt it necessary. in view of the extraordinary nature of this case, to satisfy ourselves whether each conclusion on the separate aspects of the case, is supported by evidence and is just and proper. Ordinarily, this Court is not required to (I) Crl. As. Nos. 81, 112 and 132 of 1964 decided on 23-10-1964. (2) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 460.
F
G
H
BUDHSEN v. U.P. STATE (Dua, J.)
579
enter into an elaborate examination of the evidence, but we have departed from this rule in this particular case, in view of the variety of arguments that were addressed to us and the evidence of conduct which the appellant has sought to explain away on hypotheses suggesting innocence. These arguments, as we have stated in brief, covered both the factual as well as the medical aspect~ of the case, and have necessitated a close examination of the evidence once again, so that we may be in a position to say what are the facts found, on which our decision is rested."
In Mahebub Beb v. The State of Maharasl1tra(') this Court observed:
D
f
"We have been taken through the entire evidence of all the important witnesses by counsel for the appellants and we do not think that the conclusion recorded by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court was one which could not reasonably be\arrived at by those Courts. There are undoubtedly certain discrepancies in
In Brahmin lshwar Lal Mani/al v. The State of Gujarat(') this Court stated the pqsition thus :
H
"We have dealt with the arguments of Mr. Shroff at some length but we wish to restate that this Court will not examine for itself evidence led in a criminal case unless it is made to ap.Pear that justice has failed by reason of some misapprehension or mistake in the reading of the evidence by the High Court. The High Court must be regarded as the final court in criminal jurisdiction and special leave given in a criminal case does not entitle the person to whom the leave is given to canvass the correct· ness of the findings by having the evidence read and r<!-
(l971] l S.C.R.
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
;1ppraised. There must ordinarily be a substantial error of Jaw or procedure or a gross failure of justice by reason ct misapprhension or mistake in reading the evidence or the appeal must involve a question of principle of feneral importance before this Court will <!!low the oral e\·idencc to be discussed."
Jn G. V. Subbramanyam v. State of Andhra Pmdesh(') this Court appraised the evidence on the plea of self-defence and allowed the appeal because.the approach of the High Court on this ple:1 was found to be incorrect. Again, in Raja Ram v. State of liarya11a') because of special features like rejection by the court below of a considerable mass of evidence on serious charges, this Cot:rt looked into the evidence to see how far the case as framed against the appellant could be held proved.
Before us the entire case depends on the identification of the appellants and this identification is founded solely on test identification parades. The High Court does not seem to have correctly appreciated the evfdentiary value of these parades though they were considered to be the primary evidence in support of the prosecution case. It seems to have proceeded on the erroneous legal assumption that it is a substantive piece of evidence and that on the basis of that evidence alone the conviction can be sustained. And then that court also ignored important evidence on the record in regard to the manner in which the test identification parades were held, and other connected circumstances suggesting that they were held more or less in a mechanical way without the necessary precautions being taken to elimi· nate unfairness. 'l'his is clearly an erroneous way of dealing with the test identification parades and has caused failure of justi.::e. Shri Rana laid great emphasis on the fact that there is no enmity .shown between the witnesses and the. appellants. In our opinion, though this factor is relevant it cannot serve as a substitute for reliable admissible evidence required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence in regard to identification having been discarded by us as legally iuiirm and whlth does not connect the appellants with the alleged olkncc it cannot by itself sustain the conviction of the appellants: Non-disclosure on the record as to how and when the I nvesti~a to ti1e lacuna in the prosecution case. These appeals are alimi:ed and the accused acquitted.
Appeals a/loll'ed.
Y.P.
B
c
D
I
F
G
(!) [ 1970] I S.C.C. 225. (2) crl. A. No. 62 of 1968 on March 26, 1970
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction based solely on identification parade evidence, which lacked procedural safeguards and corroboration, could be sustained.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 due to erroneous appreciation of identification evidence causing failure of justice.
Whether identification parades constitute substantive evidence or merely corroborative of court testimony.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tej Narain v. The State of U.P.Relied on¶214
Anant Chintaman Labu v. The State of BombayRelied on¶219
Mahebub Beb v. The State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶228
Brahmin Ishwar Lal Manral v. The State of GujaratDistinguished¶234
G. V. Subbramanyam v. State of Andhra PradeshDistinguished¶243
Raja Ram v. State of HyderabadDistinguished¶243
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Budhsen
Naubat
State of U.P.
Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
