Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jafar v. State of Kerala has held that the testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered as a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) to convict the accused.

What was the Background of Jafar v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the conviction held by the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• The Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the Prosecution witness, who admitted that police had shown him the appellant and as such, he had identified him.
• The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and the appellant was acquitted of all the charges.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the appellant by stating that the identification of the accused by the witness at the police station cannot be considered a proper identification parade.
• It was further held that the prosecution witness 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 is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted. Prosecution witness clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Test Identification Parade (TIP)

About:

One of the methods of establishing the identity of the accused is TIP which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

• Section 9 of the IEA deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.

Purpose:

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence.
• It has two major purposes:
  • To satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime.
  • To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court.

Essential Elements:

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible.
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded.
• TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of witness concerned as given in the Court.

Case Law:

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime.

Section 395 of IPC

• This section deals with the punishment for dacoity.
• It states that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• The offence of dacoity has been described under Section 391 of IPC.

Section 397 of IPC

• This section deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• It states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.