HP High Court Acquits Accused After 13 Yrs
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket has acquitted a number of accused in a case of assault after 13 years, holding that when the accused are strangers to a witness, a check identification parade is critical. It was held that failure to determine the id goes to the basis of the matter, because it raises a chance that the accused was wrongly recognized.
Justice Sushil Kukreja held, “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 few of the accused individuals have been stranger to the mentioned witnesses and in these circumstances check identification parade was mandatory as a way to verify the id of the accused individuals. Failure to determine the id of the accused goes to the basis of the matter as such the potential of mistaken id can’t be dominated out.”
Background Information:
On 08.04.2008, the then Hire Controller of Wakf Board, Himachal Pradesh, made a grievance in opposition to the accused that he, together with others, was quarrelling with him and the opposite officers in Kutub Masjid, situated within the Sabzi Mandi space of Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
The complainant submitted that he, together with another officers, went to the mosque to shut a staircase contained in the Masjid, following an official order issued by the Chief Govt Officer of the Wakf Board.
He alleged that whereas they have been fixing the plywood to shut the steps, the primary accused Liyakat Ali, who was then the President of the native Hawkers’ Union, arrived on the mosque with a number of different males, who’re the co-accused on this case. As alleged by the complainant, the group began thrashing him and the opposite officers. The complainant additional submitted that he and the opposite officers suffered numerous accidents.
Primarily based on the grievance, the police registered an FIR and, after completion of the investigation, filed a cost sheet earlier than the Trial Court docket. The Trial Court docket convicted all of the accused for rioting beneath Part 147 IPC and for voluntarily inflicting grievous damage to discourage a public servant from obligation beneath Part 333 learn with Part 149 IPC.
Aggrieved, the accused filed an enchantment earlier than the Excessive Court docket.
Findings:
The Court docket noticed that the complainant in his assertion had named solely 5 individuals. The remaining accused weren’t named within the First Info Report, and the complainant additionally admitted that no check identification parade was performed by the police. He recognized the accused individuals for the primary time within the Court docket.
The Court docket remarked that from the assertion of witnesses, it’s clear that a few of the accused individuals have been strangers to the witnesses and in such circumstances check identification parade is critical as a way to verify the id of the accused individuals. It acknowledged that failure to determine the id of the accused goes to the basis of the matter, as such, the potential of mistaken id can’t be dominated out.
In Dana Yadav @ Dahu v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court docket held that “Ordinarily, if an accused will not be named within the first Info report, his identification by witnesses in court docket, shouldn’t be relied upon, particularly when they didn’t disclose identify of the accused earlier than the police. ”
Due to this fact, the Court docket held that when no check identification parade is held, and the accused is recognized for the primary time in Court docket, it shouldn’t be the only real foundation for conviction until supported by different proof.
So, when there was no particular allegation in opposition to some accused within the FIR, then clearly it was the obligation of the prosecution to show its case past an inexpensive doubt by main proof of identification earlier than the court docket that the accused individuals gave beatings to the complainant occasion.
Nonetheless, it was the obligation of the prosecution to show its case past an inexpensive doubt by main proof of identification earlier than the Court docket that the accused individuals assaulted the complainant.
The Court docket remarked that regardless of the incident occurring inside a busy mosque situated in a populated space, no impartial witness was examined.
Thus, the Court docket concluded that there’s a severe lapse within the investigation and put aside the judgment of conviction handed by the trial court docket.
Case Identify: Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP
Case No.: Cr. Attraction No.67 of 2010, a/w Cr. Appeals No.72,84 to 88,90 to 94 & 98 of 2010
Date of Determination: 20.06.2025
For the appellant(s): Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Further Advocate Common.
