Test Identification Parade Is Necessary If Accused Persons Are Strangers To Witnesses: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket has emphasised that the Check Identification Parade (TIP) is important when the accused individuals are strangers to the witnesses, in an effort to verify the id of the accused.
The Court docket emphasised thus in a batch of Prison Appeals filed by the accused individuals, difficult the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence handed by the Extra Classes Choose, by which they had been convicted beneath Sections 147, 333, 332, 353, and 506(II) learn with Part 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja noticed, “A naked perusal of the assertion of those witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-3 so examined by the prosecution is clearly indicative of the truth that a number of the accused individuals had been stranger to the stated witnesses and in these circumstances take a look at identification parade was needed in an effort to verify the id of the accused individuals. Failure to ascertain the id of the accused goes to the basis of the matter as such the potential for mistaken id can’t be dominated out.”
The Bench reiterated that if an accused is just not named within the FIR, his identification by the witnesses within the Court docket shouldn’t be relied upon particularly when they didn’t disclose title of the accused earlier than the police however to this normal rule, there could also be exceptions.
Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel appeared for the Appellants/Accused whereas Extra Advocate Basic (AAG) Pawan Kumar Nadda appeared for the Respondent/State.
Temporary Details
In 2008, the Complainant i.e., the then Hire Controller, Wakf Board, H.P. telephonically knowledgeable the police that Liyakat Ali together with others, was quarrelling with them in Kutub Masjid. Consequently, a police crew rushed to the spot the place Kutub Deen made an announcement beneath Part 154 of the Prison Process Code, 1973 (CrPC) whereby he said that he was a resident of a village and employed in Wakf Board. He additional said that from April 2001 onwards he was serving as Hire Controller of Wakf Board and Shimla circle was inside his jurisdiction. Pursuantly, staff of the Wakf Board went to Kutub Masjid in Sabzi Mandi for closing the steps main from higher corridor to the primary corridor of the Masjid.
When ply board was being fastened by one of many accused individuals, the then President of Hawkers’ Union, together with different accused individuals allegedly entered the Masjid after making prior live performance they usually began thrashing Complainant and others. One individual suffered accidents on his neck, shoulder, and again of the top. It was additional alleged that the accused individuals proclaimed that they might not depart the Masjid at any price and likewise threatened to get rid of their lives. Primarily based on the Complainant’s assertion beneath Part 154 CrPC, the police registered a case and the accused individuals had been arrested. The Trial Court docket convicted all of them and sentenced them to bear rigorous imprisonment together with a wonderful of Rs. 5,000/- every. Being aggrieved by this, they approached the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
The Excessive Court docket in view of the information and circumstances of the case, famous, “The proof led by the prosecution doesn’t encourage confidence because the prosecution witnesses had contradicted the statements of one another on materials particulars and these contradictions can’t be brushed apart by terming them as discrepancies and forgetfulness because of lapse of time. There are main discrepancies and contradictions within the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. Thus, the statements of the prosecution witnesses qua the genesis of the incident can’t be relied upon, because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are extremely witnesses.”
The Court docket stated that each one the prosecution witnesses had been within the success of the prosecution case, thus they had been witnesses and therefore, the proof of the prosecution turns into suspicious, due to this fact, no reliance may be positioned on their statements in order to make out a case for convicting the accused individuals.
“Admittedly, the place of incidence was a busy space, however surprisingly no unbiased witness was related by the police to show the case of the prosecution. PW-1 deposed that mosque was located in a thickly populated space of Shimla city and there have been outlets and residences close to the mosque. Nevertheless, the police didn’t make any effort to affiliate unbiased witnesses, regardless of their availability on the spot who might have been the perfect individuals to help the prosecution case”, it additional famous.
The Court docket additionally remarked that there are materials contradictions, elaborations, discrepancies, and enhancements within the statements of the fabric prosecution witnesses, which exhibit that the incidence had not taken place within the method, as has been depicted by the prosecution.
“In view of the information and circumstances of the case and the proof out there on report, this courtroom finds that witnesses produced by prosecution don’t encourage confidence. There are lapses on the a part of investigation”, it added.
The Court docket, due to this fact, concluded that the prosecution has did not show its case in opposition to the accused individuals past affordable doubt.
Accordingly, the Excessive Court docket allowed the Appeals and acquitted the accused individuals.
Trigger Title- Liyakat Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Impartial Quotation: 2025:HHC:19149)
Look:
Appellants: Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel and Advocate Shwetima Dogra.
Respondent: AAG Pawan Kumar Nadda
