Identification Of Accused By Witness At Police Station Doubtful: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction

The Supreme Court held that testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered a proper Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) to convict the accused.

Reversing the concurring findings of the High Court and Trial Court, the Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the accused by stating that the identification of the accused by the witness at the police station cannot be considered a proper identification parade.

“Anil Kumar (PW-8), who is the Investigating Officer (IO), has also admitted that PW-1 identified the accused persons by seeing them at the police station. He has further admitted that no identification parade was conducted. As such, it can be seen that the identification of the appellant herein by PW1 is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted. PW-1 clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people.”, the Judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai said.

The Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the Prosecution witness, who admitted that police had shown him the accused and as such, he had identified him.

Doubting such identification, the Supreme Court observed that such an identification by the witness cannot be held to be a proper identification.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the accused/appellant and that of the High Court affirming the same was quashed and set aside.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sai, Adv. Ms. Mansha Shukla, Adv.

Case Title: JAFAR VERSUS STATE OF KERALA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment