Punishment Without Proper Identification Directly Impinges Personal Liberty: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction In Robbery Case

"There is no question of identifying an accused person on assumptions and it involves a very important right guaranteed to any person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and punishing a person even without proper identity, will directly impinge upon the liberty that is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts should not be swayed by emotions and must ensure that the accused persons are properly identified. 

"In a case of this nature, the Court should not be swayed by mere emotions and the Court must necessarily ensure that the accused persons are properly identified. If such a procedure is not followed, anybody can be made as an accused person in a given case on mere recovery and in all probabilities, the person, who is shown as an accused will have nothing to do with the case."

The court also noted that in many cases, the police officers usually show a habitual criminal as the accused as it was convenient. The court observed against this line of investigation and said that just because a person is a habitual criminal, he cannot not be held responsible for every crime that took place in the society. This attitude, according to the court, will cause a dent in the criminal justice system and will make the officers ineffective.

In the present case, the appellants Vadivel, Vetrivel and Gurudev were charged with the offence of Robbery. It was alleged by the prosecution that the appellants had gone to the house of the defacto complainant and threw chilli powder in her eyes and taken away her gold chain weighing four pounds. The prosecution submitted that based on the complaint, an FIR was registered against unknown persons and later the accused persons were arrested.

The court noted that while registering the complaint, the de facto complainant had not identified any accused person by name and that a test identification parade was also not carried out during the investigation.

The court also noted that even during trial, the complainant had not identified the accused persons nor any questions were put forward by the court or the prosecution to verify the identity. The court also took note of the fact that none of the res gestae witnesses who were living in the locality identified the accused persons in court.

The court noted that the only crucial witness were the members of the Co-operative Bank where the gold chain was pledged. The court noted that their depositions would help the prosecution only with respect to recovery of the material object, ie, the gold chain, and would not help in fixing the liability on the accused. The court reiterated that mere recovery will not lead to conviction and would only be a link in the chain of circumstances.

"It must be borne in mind that a mere recovery cannot lead to conviction and sentence of accused persons unless they have been properly identified by witnesses. In other words, recovery will only be one link in the chain of circumstances and that by itself will not lead to conviction and sentence."

Thus, the court thought it fit to interfere with the sentence of the trial court and accordingly acquitted the appellants from all charges.

Case Title: Vadivel and others v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 155

Counsel for Appellants: Mr.M.Karthik for Mr.M.Prabakar, Mr.G.Mohan for Mr.S.Kumara Devan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate