Identification Of Accused By Eye-Witness Not Known To Him In Court Without Test Identification Parade Not Credible: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a murder case convict after finding that the prosecution case was not reliable and the testimony of eye-witness was not credible.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said the the eyewitness account who is unknown to the accused is not credible if he directly identified him in the Court, without prior test identification parade.The Court also said that the witness before his statement to police must have described the key characteristics of the accused.

These observations were made while hearing an appeal against the conviction of Kuldeep Singh under Sections 302, 392 IPC in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013.

According to prosecution Appellant Kuldeep Singh along with another co-accused committed murder of Bhagwan Singh in fields and ran away on his motorcycle.

After examining the submissions, the Court found the prosecution case was doubtful. The bench noted that the alleged eye-witness had stated before the investigating officer that the accused was clean shaven but the same is "inadequate descriptions of the otherwise required key physical attributes of the accused, which were peculiar only to them."

It opined that the police should have conducted test identification parade in order to ascertain the identity of the accused.

"Nonetheless, the prosecution witness...identified the accused in Court, and, yet without a prior thereto valid test identification parade becoming conducted, thereupons the first time identification in Court by the witness...of the accused-appellants but obviously appears to be an extremely frailly made identification," said the court.

Furthermore, the Court opined that the witness is not credible because he had deposed that he was informed by an electrician named Darshan Singh that his deceased cousin was injured by the accused but failed to produce the said electrician as witness.

"However, since the prosecution has omitted to cite said Darshan Singh either as a prosecution witness, nor has ensured his stepping into the witness box, therebys the omissions (supra) on the part of the prosecution, thus has caused a grave dent vis-a-vis the veracity of the deposition made by PW-2 Reema Singh. In consequence, no credit can be assigned to the deposition of PW-2 Reema Singh."

Speaking for the bench Justice Sureshwar Thakur also highlighted that 315 bore pistol along with live cartridges, was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused concerned, was never sent to the ballistic expert for opinion. "The omission of sending of the recovered .315 bore pistol along with the live cartridges to the ballistic expert, thus is of critical importance," added the bench.

In light of the above, the Court set aside the conviction order and allowed the appeal.

Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Title: Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa and another v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order