Jharkhand High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau under Sections 3941 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J., stated that three of the accused persons, except Accused 1 had been identified by the victim, both in Test Identification Parade (‘TIP’) and in the Court during trial. Accused 1 was apprehended on the spot, therefore he had not been put on TIP. Even if it was assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appeared to be in the present case, that would by itself does not erode the evidentiary value of the identification in the Court. In any case, defect in investigation could not be a ground to cast away the testimony of witnesses, which was otherwise proved.
The Court stated that the identification in TIP during investigation was part of the investigation and it was not a substantive piece of evidence. The Investigating Officer had stated that Accused 1 was apprehended on spot and when an accused was apprehended on spot, there was no purpose of putting him on TIP. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the Court stated that it did not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and dismissed the present petition.
Background
On 20-08-2016, at about 3:45 am, a road robbery was committed, in which, two trucks were looted and, in the process, the driver of one of the Trucks was critically injured by knife. Based on the statement of driver, a case was registered under Sections 394 of the IPC against four accused persons. During investigation by the police, Accused 1 was apprehended and on his confessional statement, the other co-accused persons were also apprehended. Charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 394 and 4112 of the IPC and they were put on trial under these Sections.
The Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 394 of the IPC and the said judgment of conviction was affirmed in appeal. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Accused persons contended that the judgment of conviction had been returned based on the test identification of the accused persons. However, the Magistrate who conducted the identification had deposed that on 17-11-2016, they were identified by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, there was delay of three months in conducting the TIP and as per the prosecution case, name of other three accused persons came on the confessional statement of the Accused 1. However, during trial Accused 1 was not identified in the Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was a settled law, that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Court was to confine itself to the legality and propriety of the Judgment or order and would not interfere with the impugned order, unless it was perverse. The Court stated that in a criminal adjudication, mainly two facts were needed to be proved. First, in the actual commission of the offence. Secondly, the person involved in the offence. In the present case, commission of road robbery was established by the consistent account of the witnesses. The case was lodged without any delay based on the statement of the injured victim, and one of the accused was apprehended on spot.
The Court stated that three of the accused persons, except Accused 1 had been identified by the victim, both in TIP and in the Court during trial. Accused 1 was apprehended on the spot, therefore he had not been put on TIP. Even if it was assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appeared to be in the present case, that would by itself does not erode the evidentiary value of the identification in the Court. In any case defect in investigation could not be a ground to cast away the testimony of witnesses, which was otherwise proved.
The Court stated that the identification in TIP during investigation was part of the investigation and it was not a substantive piece of evidence. Any irregularity committed during investigation could not be the sole ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety, if it was otherwise proved by other cogent and reliable evidence. The Court referred to Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75, wherein it was held that the identification tests did not constitute substantive piece of evidence. They were primarily an assurance to the investigating agency that their investigation was progressing in the right line. The identifications could only be used as corroborative evidence.
The Court stated that the Investigating Officer had stated that Accused 1 was apprehended on spot and when an accused was apprehended on spot and was named, there was no purpose of putting him on TIP. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the Court stated that it did not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and dismissed the present petition.
[Bholu Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2069, decided on 28-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 309(6) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
